FULLTEXT02geomancie Byzantine

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS
Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia

11
Eva Nyström
CONTAINING MULTITUDES
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective
UPPSALA 2009
Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Ihresalen, Engelska
parken, Humanistiskt centrum, Thunbergsvägen 3, Uppsala, Saturday, May 16, 2009 at 10:15
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English.
Abstract
Nyström, E. 2009. Containing Multitudes. Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 in Perspective. Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 11. 340 pp. ISBN 978-91-554-7501-7.
This study employs as its primary source a codex from Uppsala University Library, Codex
Upsaliensis Graecus 8. Its aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the Late Byzantine
and post-Byzantine miscellaneous book. It is argued that multitext books reflect the time and
society in which they were created. A thorough investigation of such books sheds light on the
interests and concerns of the scribes, owners, and readers of the books. Containing some
ninety texts of different character and from different genres, Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 is a
complex creation, but still an example of a type of book that was common during the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance. This study takes a comprehensive view of the book in its entirety,
making sense of its different parts in relation to the whole with the help of codicology and
textual analysis. With that approach the original idea of the book is brought to the fore, and
the texts are studied in the same context that the main scribe Theodoros chose and the early
owners and readers of the book encountered.
Through a systematic codicological analysis, the overall structure of the codex is explored
and suggestions are made concerning the provenance. The examination of the scribal work
procedure becomes a means to profile this otherwise fairly unknown scribe. The texts are
grouped and characterized typologically to illustrate connections throughout the whole book
as well as in relation to the separate structural units. The role of microtexts and secondary
layers of inscription is also considered. From the perspective of usability the texts are divided
into four categories: narrative texts, rhetorical texts, philosophical-theological texts, and
practical texts. Three texts are studied in greater depth, as examples of the width of the
scribe's interests and the variety of the book's contents.
Keywords: Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, Byzantine and post-Byzantine book history, codi-
cology, multitext books, miscellany, composite book, microtext, codicological unit, scribal
work procedure
Eva Nyström, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Box 635, Uppsala University,
SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden
© Eva Nyström 2009
ISSN 0283-1244
ISBN 978-91-554-7501-7
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-100643 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-100643)
Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås 2009.
Distributor: Uppsala University Library, P.O. Box 510, SE-751 20 Uppsala

www.ub.uu.se, acta@ub.uu.se

Acknowledgements
The journey toward the completion of a doctoral dissertation is joyful and

adventurous but also strenuous and meandering. To reach the goal one needs
good guides, people who point one in the right direction. I have been fortu-
nate in having had such well-informed cicerones. My sincere and warm
thanks go to the following persons, all important for me in my work in vari-
ous ways:
To Professor Jan Fredrik Kindstrand, who took me on as a doctoral stu-
dent and first introduced me to the codex which eventually became the sub-
ject of this thesis. To my supervisor Professor Jan Olof Rosenqvist for teach-
ing me Greek in the first place, for being a knowledgeable guide to all things
Byzantine and a patient and thorough reader of all my drafts. To my supervi-
sor Professor Monica Hedlund, indefatigable coach and model, for your en-
couragement and clearsightedness, for sharing with me the excitement and
interest in codicological research. To Professor Paolo Odorico (EHESS,
Paris), who generously read a late version of my manuscript and contributed
to its final shape through judicious and apt remarks. To Dr. h.c. Nigel G.
Wilson (Oxford) and Prof. Dr. Dieter Harlfinger (Hamburg) for much
needed advice at an early stage of my research.
My deep gratitude also goes to Ingela Nilsson, for rewarding discussions,
support and friendship. To Theodore Markopoulos, for giving me the dia-
chronic perspective of Greek that I needed and for helpful remarks on my
last draft. To Dimitrios Iordanoglou and Denis Searby, who for a while
shared my interest in Codex Ups. gr. 8 (within the Swedish Research Coun-
cil project) and who have been long-lasting friends and colleagues to me. To
the participants in the Greek and Byzantine seminar for all the time and ef-
fort you put in on my behalf: Ove Strid, Ewa Balicka-Witakowska, Mikael
Johansson, Johan Heldt, Mats Eriksson, Irina Brändén, and, not least, my
“room mates” at the Institute, fellow doctoral students David Westberg and
Patrik Granholm, always there to bandy ideas with. Although I do not men-
tion everyone by name, my thoughts also go my Latinist friends and other
colleagues at the Institute of linguistics and philology: my working days
have been much more fun and interesting thanks to you all.
My English was improved on by Professor Ann Charters (Univ. of Con-
necticut): I thank you dearly for this and also for taking an interest in my
work. The constantly supportive librarians and staff at Uppsala University
Library have assisted me during many years, and I hope that I will yet spend
many days to come in the Rare Books Department, indulging, leafing
through the treasures of old. My research was made possible through a gen-
erous scholarship from the Göransson-Sandviken foundation of Gästrike-
Hälsinge nation, Uppsala.
Doctoral studies are an engulfing activity. The upside of all the tough
years, the necessary counter-balance in my life is spelled Rolf and Fredrika.
My beloved husband, words cannot capture what I feel—if it weren’t for
your love, where would I be! Your curiosity and assured faith in me have
carried me through bad days and the joy of better days is doubled when I
share it with you. And Fredrika, my precious daughter, my absolute treasure,
because you are the most important person in my life I dedicate this book to
you.
Contents
Abbreviations................................................................................................13
Preface ..........................................................................................................17
INTRODUCTION
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology.........................21
What can a book tell us? – Scope and aim of the study ...........................21
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance..................................22
Book history .............................................................................................25
Codicology...........................................................................................26
Philology, old and new ........................................................................27
Contextualizing medieval books..........................................................29
Previous research on multitext books.......................................................31
A few conference volumes ..................................................................32
Studies of Byzantine multitext books ..................................................33
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies ..........................................................38
Multitext books ........................................................................................38
Terminology current at the time ..........................................................41
The container and its contents ..................................................................42
Physical structure.................................................................................42
The relation between contents and structure........................................44
BRINGING OUT THE STRUCTURE
3 Codicological Description and Analysis...................................................51
General aspects of the codex ....................................................................51
Provenance and further vicissitudes ....................................................51
Library shelf-marks .............................................................................52
Watermarks..........................................................................................52
Book block and binding.......................................................................54
Foliation...............................................................................................55
Scribes .................................................................................................55
Criteria for discerning codicological units ...............................................59
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax ......................................................62
Nicholas de la Torre’s contribution to Gr 8.........................................62
The selection of entries for the pinax...................................................64
The discarded pinax on f. IIv ................................................................69
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87 ..........................................................70
Anomalies in the quire construction ....................................................71
A reconstruction of Q2–Q3 .................................................................71
Sketch of Q2 and Q3 (ff. 1–6 and 7–12b): ..........................................73
The lacuna before f. 13 ........................................................................74
Some reflections around the boundary at f. 76 ....................................76
Secondary layers of U2........................................................................78
Codicological unit 3 (U3), ff. 88–103 ......................................................80
Bridging components at a manifest unit boundary ..............................81
Codicological unit 4 (U4), ff. 104–127 ....................................................82
Theodoros’ collaborator, co-scribe A ..................................................83
Theodoros as rubricator .......................................................................86

: a schematic outline of the virtues.................................87
The affinity between U6 and U7 .........................................................90
Transposed units? ................................................................................91
The change in layout between Q31 and Q32.......................................93
Codicological unit 10 (U10), ff. 238–253 ................................................94
U11–12: One divisible unit or two single but closely related units? ...95
Recycling of page fillers......................................................................96
The relationship between micro-texts..................................................97
A unit sloppily written or not?.............................................................99
Codicological unit 14 (U14), ff. 302–307 ..............................................100
The notes and scribblings in U14 ......................................................101
The scribes of U15.............................................................................103
The quire boundary at Q42–43 ..........................................................104
Minor additions of various kinds.......................................................106
The mathematical note at the end of the preceding unit ....................107
Aesopian leftovers .............................................................................108
The composite with all its units..............................................................110
The importance of structural analysis................................................110
The final design .................................................................................112
MAKING SENSE OF A ONE-VOLUME LIBRARY
4 The contents of Gr 8 ...............................................................................117
How to assort and categorize (and to what end).....................................117
Categories of texts in Gr 8 .....................................................................118
Narrative texts ........................................................................................119
Stephanites and Ichnelates.................................................................121
Further fable stories and fictitious biographies..................................124
Historical narratives...........................................................................126
Rhetorical texts.......................................................................................130
Oratory...............................................................................................131
Poetry.................................................................................................134
Epistolography...................................................................................137
Philosophical and theological texts ........................................................151
Cosmology according to the ancient philosophers ............................152
The soul .............................................................................................154
Gregory Thaumatourgos et sqq. ........................................................156
Reverberations from the Ferrara-Florence discussions......................159
Fate and predestination ......................................................................162
More on virtue and vice.....................................................................164
Devotional, biblical, and liturgical texts............................................165
Practical texts .........................................................................................166
Gnomical texts ...................................................................................167
Gnomologies......................................................................................168
Scattered sayings ...............................................................................171
Lists ...................................................................................................172
Lexica ................................................................................................173
Medical texts......................................................................................174
Mathematical problems .....................................................................175
Astrology/divination ..........................................................................176
An idiosyncratic selection..................................................................176
Minding the gaps, bridging the differences............................................176
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts ........................................................183
“Varia nullius momenti” or significant components? ............................183
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29..................................................184
Text 29 (ff. 189v–190v) .....................................................................186
Translation .........................................................................................187
Menstrual impurity ............................................................................189
The medical view of menstruation ....................................................191
The penalty paid ................................................................................195
A mindset established and transmitted ..............................................200
The method of ramplion: Text 66 ..........................................................212
Magic and divination in Byzantium...................................................213
Text 66 (ff. 283v–285v) .....................................................................218
How to create a geomantic chart .......................................................224
The astrological lore in Text 66.........................................................226
Why is Text 66 incomplete? ..............................................................232
A further look at the background of geomancy .................................232
Not a poor man’s astrology................................................................235
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81 ...................................238
Text 81 (ff. 320r–323r) ......................................................................242
Ecclesiastical offices..........................................................................246
Secular offices ...................................................................................249
The formulary reflecting a certain milieu ..........................................258
Addendum: The formulary in Codex Escorialensis .IV.1...............261
Afterword....................................................................................................263
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8 ..............................................................265
Text 6.................................................................................................265
Text 12...............................................................................................265
Text 14...............................................................................................270
Text 18...............................................................................................270
Text 19...............................................................................................272
Text 29...............................................................................................273
Text 30...............................................................................................274
Text 31...............................................................................................275
Text 32...............................................................................................275
Text 33...............................................................................................276
Text 35...............................................................................................277
Text 38...............................................................................................277
Text 41...............................................................................................280
Text 48...............................................................................................282
Text 49...............................................................................................290
Text 53...............................................................................................290
Text 57...............................................................................................293
Text 60...............................................................................................293
Text 61...............................................................................................294
Text 65b.............................................................................................296
Text 66...............................................................................................296
Text 81...............................................................................................296
Appendix 2: Codicological table ................................................................297
Bibliography ...............................................................................................311
Index ...........................................................................................................334
Abbreviations
AASS Acta sanctorum. Brussels; Antwerp; Paris, 1643– .

AbhBerl Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
AG Anthologia Graeca, 2nd ed., ed. H. Beckby, 4 vols. Munich, 1965–68.
AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves
ASAW Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig
B Byzantion
BAB Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l’Académie Royale de Belgique
BAGB Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé
BASO Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BHG Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, 3rd ed., ed. F. Halkin, 3 vols. Brus-
sels, 1957.
BHM Bulletin of the History of Medicine
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BNJ Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher
BollClass Bollettino dei classici
Br. BRIQUET 1968; see also Bibliography
BT Bibliotheca Teubneriana
Budé Collection des Universités de France, l'Association Guillaume Budé
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CCAG Catalogus Codicum astrologorum graecorum, ed. F. Cumont et al., 12
vols. Brussels, 1898–1953.
CCSL Corpus christianorum, Series latina
CFHB Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae
ChHist Church History
CMG Corpus medicorum Graecorum
CNRS Centre national de la recherche scientifique
CPG Clavis patrum graecorum, ed. M. Geerard & F. Glorie, 5 vols. Turn-
hout, 1974–87.
CQ Classical Quarterly
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae
DBI Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, ed. A.M. Ghisalberti. Rome,
1960– .
DenkWien Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-historische Klasse
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DSp Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique. Paris, 1932–1997.

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
GLM Gazette du Livre Médiéval
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
Ha. HARLFINGER & HARLFINGER 1974–1980; see also Bibliography
HAW Handbuch der [Klassischen] Altertumswissenschaft
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JHB Journal of the History of Biology
JHI Journal of the History of Ideas
JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
JWarb Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
Loeb Loeb Classical Library
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones et al.
Oxford, 1996.
MiscByzMon Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia
MT Museum Tusculanum

.

ÖAW Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
OCP Orientalia Christiana Periodica
ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. Kazhdan et al., 3 vols.
New York, 1991.
P&P Past and Present
Pi. PICCARD 1961– ; see also Bibliography
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, 161
vols. Paris, 1857–66.
PL Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols.
Paris, 1844–64.
PLP Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, ed. E. Trapp et al.
Vienna, 1976– .
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart 1941– .
REB Revue des études byzantines
REG Revue des études grecques
RenQ Renaissance Quarterly
Repertorium Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600, ed. E. Gamillscheg
et al. Vienna, 1981– .
RH Revue historique
RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
RSBN Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici
SAWW Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft in
Wien, Philos.-Hist. Klasse
SBN Studi bizantini e neoellenici
SC Sources chrétiennes
StudMed Studi Medievali
TM Travaux et mémoires
TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu)
TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B. Snell et al. Göttingen,
1971– .
WByzSt Wiener byzantinistische Studien
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Preface
In the field of Greek and Byzantine studies working with manuscripts is no

revolutionary stance. Rather the opposite. But the radical question is: how do
we go about our manuscript study? The normal procedure has been to collect
manuscripts containing a specific text, selecting among them the superior
witnesses, discarding most of the others as “corrupt,” and cleansing the re-
mainders into a critical edition. Of course, we are all very grateful when we
can read a text in a reasonably decent edition. Time is too scarce to have
everyone consult the manuscripts, and the facsimiles are as yet too few to
make up for the limited access to the real thing. But you are doomed to miss
out on a lot of exciting matter in this process. An objection to the quest for
the conclusive edition is that one will possibly end up with a fabricated text
that was never ever read at the time. If indeed one does arrive at a fairly pris-
tine wording, it is still not the “same” text, since it is cut out of its context
and is presented as a singular, monograph text, despite the fact that more
often than not the medieval codex happened to hold not only one text, but
two, three, ten, or even several dozens of texts.
Let us say you end up with one of these multi-text, rather ordinary-
looking medieval codices on your desk. It may not contain the rare pieces of
canonized authors. Its readings are of little use in the preparation of a critical
edition. Well, you may feel like the archeologist who came to the excavating
site a little too late to dig up the golden treasures, the death masque of
Atreus, but grubbing around once more you find small but undeniable traces
of people’s daily life. It may not be Mycenean civilization, but a medieval
farmer’s kitchenware, or even Herr Schliemann’s shaving brush. So, we
modify our picture of the past, less heroic, more diversified.
Medieval and postmedieval manuscript books are more than just text car-
riers. They were the belongings of people who ordered, copied, bought, and
read them, who perhaps wanted their children to own and read them in turn.
This is why I wish to take the context into account, keeping whatever is pos-
sible of the original setting of the texts, trying to see the books as they may
have been approached before they became the anonymous objects of library
accession lists. Little attention has been paid to these mundane realities by
literary critics, despite the fact that they often claim to elucidate a text’s
meaning and impact. But the contextual and codicological awareness is gain-
ing ground, and future researchers will hopefully benefit from a more com-
17
Preface
prehensive approach to manuscript books, whether they be monographs or

multitext books.
A book is both meaning and the vehicle by which meaning is conveyed; it
is the object of various enterprises of production, distribution, and consump-
tion, so that “just what it is under one of these headings necessarily influ-
ences what it is under the others.”1 This is the point of departure for my in-
vestigation of Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a late fifteenth-century miscel-
lany. My first acquaintance with the manuscript came through a project fi-
nanced by the Swedish Research Council. One of the main ambitions of the
project was to publish the many anonymous and hitherto inedited texts in
this extensive manuscript. However, through assiduous work by three stu-
dents (Dimitrios Iordanoglou, Johan Löfström, and myself) and our supervi-
sor, professor Jan Fredrik Kindstrand, the number of inedita shrunk, less
because of editing work than by the fact that we were able to identify many
of the texts as portions of already known works from Greek and Byzantine
literature. What I present here is, thus, an offshoot of this project, but I have
chosen a different approach, keeping the whole book in perspective.
1
DAVIDSON 1989, 1.
18
INTRODUCTION
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology,
and Philology
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
What can a book tell us? – Scope and aim of the study
The main focus of this study is a late fifteenth-century codex from Uppsala
University Library, Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 (henceforth abbreviated
Gr 8). The book presents a kaleidoscopic combination of some ninety texts
of various character and length, and despite the fact that technically it is
made up of several units, the book was almost entirely produced by one and
the same scribe. One may thus expect it to reflect a particular individual’s
reading interests, whether the scribe collected the texts for himself or for a
commissioner.
Gr 8 is a many-sided book in a number of ways: it is post-Byzantine but
also not—few of the included works are of later origin than the 1450s. The
subject matter is Greco-Byzantine, and yet there are tracks leading to West-
ern Europe, for example Leonardo Bruni’s text about the constitution of
Florence and a couple of others on doctrinal issues debated at the Church
Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438–39. In addition, it opens up to cultures
east of Byzantium, as in a Greek version of the Persian-Arabic fable story
Kalla wa-Dimna and a text on ramplion, a form of divination which seems
to have spread from Arabic-speaking areas. The book gives us religious and
secular texts, advanced and elementary, poetic and practical, in different
styles and on different language levels, works from within a chronological
span of more than 1500 years. The oldest texts are from Hellenistic times or
even earlier, authored by—or attributed to—Aristotle, Isocrates, Hippocrates
and Aesop, to take a few examples. Among the latest texts are letters from
Cardinal Bessarion (d. 1472); one of them, to Michael Apostoles, is dated
1 Preliminaries: Book History, Codicology, and Philology
1462.2 Another late example is a Monody on the Fall of Constantinople writ-

ten by Manuel Christonymos (d. 1482), who during Turkish rule became
patriarch of Constantinople.
Is it possible to achieve order in such a farrago? What can it tell us about
the book’s originator and the cultural setting it sprang from? Is it unique, or
is it rather an example (though quite excessive) of a type of book which was
common in those days? The aim of my investigation is to find answers to at
least some of these questions through a careful examination of the
codicological structure of the book as well as the included texts, their placing
and context.
The extent and complexity of Gr 8 (it runs to about 700 pages, or 348
folios) force me to put some limits to the exploration: I present in-depth
studies of three hitherto unknown texts, mainly to illustrate how the smaller,
apparently unassuming texts in a book may contribute to our understanding
of the setting in which the book was created. Other inedita are instead
assembled in an appendix to allow other researchers access to them. They
are provided with a limited apparatus, and textual corrections are gingerly
undertaken so as to make the texts slightly more readable, but still facilitate
for the readers to get an idea of what they look like in the manuscript.
To place Gr 8 in a wide-ranging comparative study of Byzantine multitext
books is also a task which will have to wait. Research in this field is still in
the initial stages, with too few detailed studies from which to create a
synthesis. What I do hope to achieve is a useful case study and a first step in
the mapping out of late Byzantine multitext books as a “book genre.” Put
together with contributions and special studies by other researchers, this may
help us reach a better comprehension of medieval books in general and
multitext books in particular.
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance

Uppsala University Library has among its possessions around seventy-five
Greek manuscripts. These have ended up in the library from different paths,
but one important collection is the books which once belonged to Johan
Gabriel Sparwenfeld (codices Upsalienses Graeci 1–8). During the late sev-
enteenth century this polyglot diplomat travelled widely in Europe. One of
his commissions was to acquire old books which might support the Geatish
ideas at sway in Sweden in those days. King Karl XI was enthusiastic about
seeing Sweden as the original home of the Goths, since it would be an excel-
lent piece of propaganda in his ambitions for the country as Europe’s great
2
For ancient Greek authors I use the more familiar English or Latinized names. For the Byz-
antine period I follow the example of Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Greek transliteration,
except for those first names which have an equivalent in English).
22
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance
power, and even though this specific assignment was hopeless, Sparwenfeld
did bring home a considerable number of manuscripts from his travels.3 The
European and North African expedition of 1689–1694 also took him to Ven-
ice, where he obtained codices Gr. 1 and 4, and to Spain where codices Gr.
2–3 and 5–8 came into his hands.
There is no information in the codex itself on exactly when and where in
Spain Sparwenfeld purchased it.4 What we do know is that it once belonged
to the monastery of El Escorial, but disappeared from there in connection
with the great fire in 1671.5 According to the old library catalogs, the codex
was in the library of El Escorial for about a hundred years. Gregorio de
Andrés and Alejo Revilla claim to have information that it arrived at Philip
II’s library by way of Diego Guzman’s acquisition in 1573 of Matteo Dan-
dolo’s books in Venice. But their specifications are confused, and I cannot
say that I have been able to confirm this fact.6 An inventory from the Palace
Archive in Madrid verifies that in 1576 the codex was included in Philip II’s
donation to the Escorial library.7 In chapter 3 I argue that the codex was
probably created around 1480 or somewhat later. The geographic origin is
not clear, but there are indications which may point to Crete; at least it seems
the scribe had connections to the circle of scribes around Michael Apostoles.
3
The donation included books in many different languages besides the Greek (Arabic, Syriac,
Persian, Chinese, Slavonic, among others; see Catalogus centuriae 1706). On Sparwenfeld
himself, see further BIRGEGÅRD 2002, 13–17; JACOBOWSKY 1939.
4
Notes of purchase are found in the following codices: Gr 2 in Madrid, May 1690; Gr 6 in
Valladolid, April 1690; Gr 7 in Toledo, April 1690. According to Carl Wilhelm Jacobowsky,
Sparwenfeld’s stay in Spain lasted nine months, 1689–90 (JACOBOWSKY 1939, 59).
5
On this calamity, in which nearly 4,000 codices were destroyed, see ANDRÉS 1965, 65–81.
Olim Escorialenses are also Sparwenfeld’s codices Gr. 2, 5, 6 and 7; the different notes of
purchase (see n. 4) show that these Escorial codices were already dispersed in many direc-
tions, and that Sparwenfeld could have acquired Gr 8 in any of these places or elsewhere.
6
See No. 66 in Andrés’ catalog on the lost holdings of El Escorial, where he states that this
codex, with the earlier shelf mark . VI. 16, is identical to Gr 8. For the information on Mat-
teo Dandolo as the former owner of the codex he refers to “Revilla p. LXXV n. 142” (ANDRÉS
1968, 38). Yet, in Andrés’ appendices to the edition and Spanish translation of Charles
Graux’s Essai sur les origines du fonds grec de l’Escurial (Los origenes del fondo griego del
Escorial) a certain “Barlaami historia, papyro, nunquam edita. . VI. 16” is put forward as
the book that Guzman de Silva bought from Dandolo in Venice in 1573 (GRAUX 1982, 509,
No. 12). Revilla’s No. 142 refers to a parchment codex in octavo: “Historia Aethiopica, 8o,
perg.” (REVILLA 1936, lxxv). This Historia Aethiopica most likely refers to another Barlaam
codex and not to Gr 8, and since Gr 8 is a paper codex the reference in Revilla seems to be of
no value. I have also checked the archival material which both Revilla and Andrés build upon:
the “Barlaami historia papiro” and the “Historia Æthiopica Joannis monachi pergameno” are
both mentioned among the 87 codices which Guzman bought from Dandolo, but I cannot see
that this would bring us any further in relation to the provenance of Gr 8. Cf. Archivo General
de Simancas, sección de la Secretaría de Estado, legajo 1549, ff. 44–45 (Relaçion de los libros
que se han comprado en Veneçia por orden de su Mg.d y de lo que por ellos pagó el Em-
baxador Diego Guzmán de Silva los quales se han embiado a su Mg.d).
7
BEER 1903, xcii (No 160 c I). Our codex had by then been kept by Juan de Serojas for two
years, i.e. from March 1574. Serojas was Philip II’s treasurer of arms and apparently also the
keeper of the king’s valuable books (BEER 1903, xxviif.).
23
Stig Rudberg held a different view in this matter, and suggested Constantin-
ople as the place of origin for Gr 8 by reason of the alleged affinity of Gr 8
to another manuscript, Parisinus graecus 2991A. I will problematize this
later on, in connection with the codicological analysis of the codex.8 Some
notes in Gr 8 by subsequent owners suggest that the book was in Greek
hands up until at least the mid-sixteenth century. That is, accordingly, the
whole story of Gr 8 as we know it today: the codex was created in the 1480s
(Crete?); owned by various Greek-speaking persons at least until around
1550; perhaps bought by Matteo Dandolo after that (not fully corroborated);
purchased—in Venice?—in the 1570s on behalf of the Spanish king, Philip
II; donated to El Escorial in 1576; gone missing from El Escorial in 1671;
acquired by Sparwenfeld around 1690 and brought to Sweden; donated to
Uppsala University Library in 1705.9
Earlier descriptions of Gr 8 include Charles Graux’s contribution in his
Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de Suède.10 Like all late nineteenth-
century catalogs, Graux’s publication has its drawbacks, especially when it
comes to codicological matters. But the established practice is also different
nowadays in how to deal with minor texts, scribal remarks, and readers’
additions. If we wish to assess a book in its entirety, these pieces of adia-
phora must also count. They give important information on how scribes
proceeded when replenishing a book, exploiting the space they had at hand.
Furthermore, they may offer insights into how a book was read and used,
perhaps indicating the scribe’s or a reader’s paths of association. Graux’s
catalog provides no information on these points.
In 1994 Sofía Torallas Tovar published a new survey of those Uppsala
codices which were once part of the El Escorial collection. Unfortunately,
this cataloging project did not provide as much novel information as one
may have hoped. At least for Gr 8, her additions seem to be drawn mainly
from the articles which Vilhelm Lundström, Stig Rudberg and Lars-Olof
Sjöberg had already published on the subject.11 Many texts in the manu-
scripts were still left unidentified, just as they were in Graux’s catalog. In the
case of Gr 8, though, an important contribution was Torallas Tovar’s sug-
gested identification of the main scribe, Theodoros. Although she was not
positively stating this, proposing Nicholas Sagundino as her main alternative
(not viable, in my opinion), she did add that “[s]e puede comparar con Hun-
ger, 2, 176, Theodoros, a. 1488.” I believe that it is establishable beyond
doubt that this Theodoros is the person behind Gr 8.12 This scribe is only
known from a colophon in a Paris manuscript and through the comparison of
8
See further p. 110.
9
Sparwenfeld’s letter of donation is included in Catalogus centuriae 1706.
10
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 34–41.
11
LUNDSTRÖM 1897; RUDBERG 1960; SJÖBERG 1960; RUDBERG 1977.
12
Cf. TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 225; Repertorium II, 176. On the scribes in Gr 8, see further
Chapter 3.
24
Book history
his handwriting in the case of Gr 8 and yet another manuscript. One aspira-
tion of this study is to reveal more about his work procedure and, at best, to
give an indication of possible connections between him and other scribes or
scriptoria.
Rudberg emphasized the importance of the numerous inedita in Gr 8.13
Some of these have since been identified as already known and edited works,
others have become the subject of separate studies.14 Although not uncon-
cerned with the aspect of textual editing, my approach is rather to take a
comprehensive view of the book in its entirety, to make sense of its different
parts in relation to the whole. This brings us closer to the original idea of the
book as it took shape through the scribal work, decoration and assembly of
quires and units. It also takes into account the fact that this was the way
these texts met the owners and readers of the book, in precisely that co-
existence of high and low, of varying subject matter and different genres.
Short texts, longer ones, complete texts and minute excerpts: They were all
present and contributed to people’s reading experience.
Book history
By taking a “whole-book approach,” the investigation of Gr 8 becomes part
of a field of research which is nowadays about to establish itself as an aca-
demic discipline in its own right. The labeling of this domain varies between
different universities: at some it is called The History of the Book, at others
Sociology of Literature, or it may, for example, be included in Cultural Stud-
ies. Since this is not a very common common approach in the fields of Clas-
sical and Byzantine Studies, I will introduce it briefly, and also relate it on
one hand to what manuscript scholars are doing in practice, in their codi-
cological and philological research, on the other hand to the theoretical ten-
dencies behind the development in these areas.
Book history is not a new area of research but it has certainly thrived in
recent times. I borrow the definition that the editors Ezra Greenspan and
Jonathan Rose gave in the Introduction to the first issue of the journal Book
History (1998):
Our field of play is the entire history of written communication: the creation,
dissemination, and uses of script and print in any medium, including books,
newspapers, periodicals, manuscripts, and ephemera. We will explore the
social, cultural, and economic history of authorship, publishing, printing, the
book arts, copyright, censorship, bookselling and distribution, libraries,
literacy, literary criticism, reading habits, and reader response.
13
RUDBERG 1960, 6.
14
SEARBY 2003a; SEARBY 2003b; NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009.
25
Two directions of research have shaped recent studies of book history: the
French Histoire du livre with its connection to the Annales circle focusing
mainly on social history; and the Analytical bibliography with its emphasis
on the study of books as physical objects, which has had its strongest support
among British and American scholars. The broad outlines of Histoire du
livre run the risk of generalizing too much about cultural and social move-
ments if not grounded in knowledge of the actual books, their production and
reception. And, likewise, Analytical bibliography may end up being charged
with antiquarianism if no effort is made to put the particulars on editions,
printing runs, bindings, et cetera, into a larger social context. Nevertheless,
both perspectives are necessary and can fertilize each other.15
What most book history research has had in common, regardless of theo-
retical framework, is that it has been carried out on so-called “modern”
books, i.e. on printed material. This is obvious if we look at some of the
classics in the field: Lucien Febvre’s and Henri-Jean Martin’s work
L’apparition du livre from 1958; Elizabeth Eisenstein’s The Printing Press
as an Agent of Change from 1979; the many eminent publications by, for
example, Robert Darnton, Roger Chartier, Don F. McKenzie, and Jerome J.
McGann; they all reinforce the picture of book history as a discipline inter-
ested principally in material from the sixteenth century onwards. But how is
it possible for “books” suddenly to “appear” in the second half of the fif-
teenth century? As if the manuscript books and the great demand for them
were not the whole reason for inventing the printing press! This lack of his-
torical insight in, or at least conscious disregard of, a long tradition of hand-
written book production, is unfortunately widespread. Another consequence
of this chronological restriction is that researchers have favored the mono-
lithic single-text books, which soon became the prevailing product of print.
Thus, an investigation of medieval, and post-medieval, handwritten books—
of which many are multitext and perhaps even multigenetic—becomes a
wholesome reminder that books may be created in different ways to meet the
needs of the readers, but also that in their different shapes they reflect the
time and society in which they are born.
Codicology
If a certain naïveté has marked many modern studies in their disregard of the
pre-Gutenberg book, we must remember that other voices have been heard
as well. In “Towards a History of the Mediaeval Book” (1967) Léon De-
laissé attacks on more than one flank. He criticizes the histories of the book
15
For a short outline of book history and its development, see, for example: DARNTON 1983;
RUBIN, 2003. The recent debate on whether book history should be considered a discipline in
its own right or rather a meeting place for scholars of different backgrounds, is commented on
by BELL 2002 and VAN DER WEEL 2002.
26
Book history
which are concerned merely with the printed book; he deplores the lack of an
holistic approach to medieval manuscripts, since many experts have limited
themselves to the study of a single element, like script, illumination, or bind-
ing; he complains about textual scholars who pay lipservice to the idea of
codicology being a necessary component of manuscript studies, but who
never reach beyond adding a conventional description of all the manuscripts
to their editions and then fail to use those descriptions for the appreciation of
the content in the book.16 “Too many do not yet know,” he writes, “that the
mediaeval book can be an objectif of study in itself and that [...] the archae-
ology of the manuscript is not only useful to them, but that it will permit the
creation of another history, that of the mediaeval book.”17
What followed upon Delaissé’s article on the “archaeology of the book”
was a discussion as to what this, not altogether new but certainly perfectible,
approach should be called.18 Among those who took part in the discussion
were Albert Gruijs and Albert Deroléz.19 The German term of Hand-
schriftenkunde was already well established. But eventually the term gener-
ally settled on was codicology, nowadays an established scientific branch
with its own organizations for scholarly cooperation, conferences, and jour-
nals. Albert Gruijs wished to retain two different scopes for codicology, one
“stricto sensu” for the technical, hands-on study of all physical aspects of
codices, and one “lato sensu.” The latter would include, for example, the
provenance of the manuscript, its incorporation in libraries or collections and
“the social function it fulfilled in its own day, the philosophical and socio-
logical problems it creates as a cultural phenomenon and communication
medium, the symbolism with which it is associated, and so on.”20 Gruijs’
definition of codicology lato sensu seems to tally well with definitions of
book history at large. I do not see any need for defining the boundaries so
strictly, but prefer to use codicology as a methodological tool in contributing
to the establishment of a history of the book which has room for medieval
and ancient books, just as it manages to accommodate the new book formats
which arise with computer technology at the other end of the time scale.
Philology, old and new

About two decades ago, there was a vivid discussion concerning another
methodology, philology, on its assets and drawbacks, and whether it needed
16
DELAISSÉ 1967, 433.
17
DELAISSÉ 1967, 425, n. 7.
18
That the phenomenon existed long before the name is pointed out by, for example, GUM-
BERT 1975.
19
GRUIJS 1972; DEROLÉZ 1973.
20
GRUIJS 1972, 104.
27
renewal or not.21 Contrary to codicology, philology has a history which goes

all the way back to (at least) Hellenistic times, to the Alexandrian scholars
and their efforts to establish “editions” of the Homeric epics. This kind of
scholarly activity has been carried on throughout ancient and medieval
times, not least in Byzantium.22 Without the efforts of Byzantine intellectu-
als, the full range of the literary and scientific heritage from ancient Greece
would not be with us today. I will not present any survey here of how philol-
ogy has developed over two thousand years, but merely note that the tradi-
tional emphasis on classical and biblical texts—where the main objective
was to cleanse and restore an important and often canonical text of the long
gone past—has played an important formative role for philology and textual
criticism. As always, one has to be cautious when applying a certain method
to other kinds of materials than those originally intended, or at least ask one-
self what the wider implications of such an undertaking would be. Eckehard
Simon (1990) problematizes the construction of an “original text” which
may never have existed in that form, considering the fact that medieval
literature was often transmitted in many versions and redactions. In no way
belittling the efforts of editorial scholars, he stresses the importance of the
original sources, recognizing the variance of the textual material by returning
to the manuscripts themselves. According to Simon, philology in its original
meaning as “the study of the written record in its cultural context” is the
ineluctable prerequisite of Medieval studies. He anticipates that the codices
themselves will be studied as “depositories of cultural history.”23
And this is where the spokesmen and -women for the “New Philology”
come in. The background seems to be an anxiety among medievalists of
being left behind, on the one hand ignored by theoretically more avant-garde
disciplines, and on the other hand held back by a heavy weight of ideologies
which molded medieval studies into an academic discipline in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, among them political nationalism and scientific
positivism. Taking Bernard Cerquiglini’s Eloge de la variante (1989) as a
point of departure, the New Philologists proposed a return to the manuscripts
and a greater awareness of the diversity of medieval culture in general and
especially of the diversity and fluidity of texts as transmitted in medieval
manuscripts.24 This is an intelligible and fully justifiable proposal, and I
would be unwise to take exception to it, as it more or less describes my own
interests and orientation. Nevertheless, I think the claims of the so-called
21
See for example Comparative Literature Studies 27:1 (1990), which gathers contributions
from the 1988 conference entitled “What is Philology?” held at the Center for Literary and
Cultural Studies, Harvard University. The 1990 special issue of Speculum presents other
voices on the subject of (New) philology, an issue which in turn gave rise to scholarly debate
on the subject during the 1990s (BUSBY 1993; GLEßGEN & LEBSANFT 1997).
22
On the Byzantine so-called renaissances, periods of intensified scholarly activity, see LE-
MERLE 1971; WILSON 1983.
23
SIMON 1990, 19.
24
NICHOLS 1990, 9.
28
Book history
New Philology should be balanced against what was already in the making,
long before Cerquiglini pronounced his eulogy on the variant.
Whatever view one takes of New Philology, one must at least admit that
the debate vitalized and inspired researchers to sharpen their arguments.
Whether New Philology’s focus on non-canonized texts was a contribution,
or it was a development already set in motion by (book) historians and phi-
lologists in general, a lasting outcome of many recent studies has been the
enhanced interest in the reception of texts, and the role of the readers vis-à-
vis the books and book production. More ordinary books and “common”
readers have also come to the fore and are studied with a zeal previously
applied only to high culture and the upper cultural strata of society.25
Contextualizing medieval books

Eckehard Simon’s prophecy, or wish, of soon twenty years ago, has in fact
come true. Studies of codices as depositories of cultural history have since
been undertaken in many areas and languages. The origins of the
development in the last two decades can be traced back in different
directions, most significantly in the general re-evaluation of the Middle Ages
that has been going on in the last few decades. In a way it begun already
with Johan Huizinga and his Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen (1919). Despite
much criticism and fluctuating views on Huizinga’s work, his reputation
lives on. A historian by profession, he has been acclaimed a pioneer of the
history of mentalities, of ethnography and cultural anthropology.26 This is
worth mentioning as these new fields of research have also influenced
literary studies since at least the 1980s.
Not only have historians looked at the Middle Ages with “new eyes,” but
also in literary studies scholars have taken a contextual turn in the last couple
of decades. New Criticism’s way of treating texts as autonomous aesthetic
entities which should be analyzed per se, without being loaded with the his-
torical ballast of context, has been attacked by many theoreticians since the
sixties. But the focus on textuality, as opposed to contextuality, dominated
many other school formations during the twentieth century, from Russian
formalism over to the Prague movement and Saussure’s linguistic theories
and all the way through structuralism and poststructuralism; these critics saw
language and discourse as the basis of not only texts but every human enter-
prise, giving precedence to synchronic perspectives over diachronic. The
consequence of this position—if everything is considered as text and nothing
exists outside the text—has often been a disinclination to contextualize. But
25
Recent publications on books and reading in Byzantium are, for example, CAVALLO 2006
and MONDRAIN 2006.
26
By 2004 Huizinga’s bestseller had been reprinted twenty-seven times and had seen numer-
ous translations into different languages during the more than eighty years since it first ap-
peared. On its reception, see PETERS & SIMONS (1999).
29
there are alternative ways of dealing with this belief in “pantextuality.” Try-
ing to place a text in its chronological, geographical, sociological and other
environment is not to put strains on its literary habitat. It means that we cre-
ate a web of texts around it, allowing the text to come forth as a pattern in
the woven fabric. This web is not static, it need not be a matter of the origi-
nal setting, of source hunting; rather, it allows us to read the text afresh when
in a new setting. There is no turning back from the insight that everything is
construed, that all history is narrative. Still, the incredulity toward meta-
narratives has not excused us from scrutinizing the narratives we, as human
beings, create and construe daily.27 If “language, images, and other cultural
phenomena are as central to the production of contemporary social order as
economic or political processes,”28 as both postmodernists and their more
politically oriented critics (whether they work from a Marxist, feminist,
queer, postcolonial, or other agenda) claim, then there is ample reason to
explore the impact that manifestations of language have had also in the past.
The new tendency to contextualize is not uniform in scope. It includes
thinking anew about our literary heritage and earlier canons, looking at cul-
tural production and cultural practice, bringing in nonliterary texts beside the
belles lettres, making place for the low, the marginal, and the grotesque,
leaving more room for alternative voices, mirroring the complexity and
variation of a text rather than its central themes. The orientation which has
received most attention in the attempts to reintroduce history in literary stud-
ies is the so-called New Historicism with Stephen Greenblatt and Catherine
Gallagher as its initiators.29 Not being a theory or doctrine in itself—the
theoretical perspective varies with each practitioner—the label stands for a
way of looking at texts not only as representations of a society’s behavioral
patterns but also as components in re/shaping these patterns and codes.
Questions of authority and power, cultural dominance versus subversive
voices, are the focus of inquiry. I am not endorsing New Historicism’s pos-
tulations as a whole, but certain prerequisites have their analogues in my
investigation. The assumption that representations are best understood when
considered in the context of their specific historical period is one which
comes naturally enough. Likewise the willingness to consider all sorts of
texts and not just the aesthetically valued pieces of literature. I believe that
New Historicism’s interest in identity formation as conditioned by discourse
can be a fruitful point of departure in a venture to analyze the changes which
27
The definition of postmodern as “incredulity toward metanarratives” is Jean-François Lyo-
tard’s (Lyotard 2005, xxiv). On history as narrative, see also WHITE 1987.
28
MCGOWAN 2005, 769.
29
Even Greenblatt himself vacillates in his designation of this theoretical movement, and has
suggested “cultural poetics” as an improvement. Nevertheless, the label has stuck and is now
more or less accepted. See further GALLAGHER & GREENBLATT 2000, 1–18. A balanced pres-
entation of New Historicism together with further suggestions on where to go from there, is
given by Brook Thomas (THOMAS 1991).
30
Previous research on multitext books
Byzantine society and culture went through in Late Palaiologan times and
after the downfall of the Byzantine Empire.
When it comes to understanding cultural representations in the context of
their specific historical period, we encounter a built-in problem concerning
how to define these periods and overarching structures to which we wish to
relate specific documents or occurences. Here I find myself bound in the
hermeneutical dilemma, the connection between part and whole, between
specifics and generalizations. We need the particulars to understand the
whole (even if, when it comes to history, we are aware that the “whole” is
only a creation of our limited minds), and yet without the whole the particu-
lars lose their relative position. Gr 8 is in a way caught in-between different
cultures and different times. It was produced in a Greek-speaking environ-
ment but probably in Venetian-ruled territories, handwritten although the
printed book was beginning to gain in importance, displaying Byzantine
learning at a time when Byzantium itself was past saving. In other terms, the
cultural setting for Gr 8 is not altogether easily determined.
Also on a micro-level the relation between parts and whole will take up a
great deal of my study, viz. the relation between texts within a book and
books made up of separate codicological units. A new appreciation of
medieval cultural expressions must include not only the texts, but also their
embodiment in books. In choosing the book and especially the multitext
book as an object of study, we need not conjure up a context for the
individual text. It is there for us to explore, in abundant constellations, since
every handwritten book is unique and every instance of a text put together
with other texts—by somebody and for somebody—renders a new path to
understanding the place of these texts in their cultural setting.

Investigations of medieval multitext books have been carried out from vari-
ous perspectives. Many of them focus on a particular manuscript, or an indi-
vidual author’s texts as they have been transmitted in multitext books. Even
text genres, for example vernacular love poems or sermons, have been stud-
ied. Many interesting studies are being done on multitext books in the fields
of Middle English, French, Dutch, Latin and other language areas. I confine
myself to mentioning a couple of important conferences/colloquia on miscel-
lanies and multitext books which have put the spotlight on this area of re-
search. Unfortunately, the terminology for multitext books is not constant
among scholars; I will return to this problem in Chapter 2.
31
A few conference volumes

Pioneering in the area of multitext books was a conference held at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania in 1993, the proceedings of which are collected in
the volume The Whole Book, edited by Stephen Nichols and Siegfried
Wenzel (1996). The focus of the conference was on the taxonomy of medie-
val miscellaneous manuscripts, mainly from the perspective of contents. In
the conference volume, Barbara Shailor’s article “A Cataloger’s View” has a
special bearing on what I try to do in my study. Shailor starts out by suggest-
ing that miscellaneous manuscripts may not be an appropriate term for de-
scribing structurally or textually complex codices. In most cases there is an
underlying principle of organization that helps explain both the physical
format and the contents of the volume. After describing four types of fif-
teenth-century (Latin) “miscellaneous” books from the Beinecke Library,
she concludes with some advice on how to handle collections of this kind: “I
would try to describe more explicitly and consistently the relationship be-
tween the structure of the codex and its texts; I would speculate on the ap-
parent principle or principles of organization and would place each volume
more firmly in its cultural milieu.”30 The end result would be a fuller com-
prehension of books which were—for the audiences or individuals that pro-
duced, read, and used them—probably not very miscellaneous after all.
In 1999 a colloquium took place in Brussels regarding the Van Hulthem
manuscript, an early fifteenth-century Dutch miscellany containing more
than 200 texts. The lectures, which deal not only with the Van Hulthem
manuscript but also with other miscellanies from the Low Countries, France
and England, were edited by Ria Jansen-Sieben and Hans van Dijk in Codi-
ces miscellanearum: Brussels Van Hulthem Colloquium 1999.31 From Wim
van Anrooij’s article, “Medieval Miscellanies from the Low Countries,” we
may conclude that scholarly work on Dutch miscellanies has, relatively
speaking, come a long way. Reasons for the vivid interest in these kinds of
manuscripts are manifold, but the fact that a few of them are central trans-
mittors of medieval Dutch literature must have helped. Also, the religious
revival of Devotio moderna in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with its
focus on practical piety for both laity and priests, brought about an intense
copying activity, the result of which was often rapiaria, i.e. miscellanies for
devotional use.32 As a consequence, there is a rich treasure of miscellaneous
30
SHAILOR 1996, 165.
31
The Brussels colloquium was part of the larger Van Hulthem project and of the project
“Medieval collective manuscripts from the Low Countries,” a venture which has also mani-
fested itself in the publication series Middeleeuwse Verzamelhandschriften uit de Neder-
landen. The term “collective” for multi-text manuscripts is, to my mind, not an optimal
choice, since it may be misinterpreted as “produced by several scribes,” a mode of procedure
which may apply also to manuscripts which contain only one text. Cf. the generally accepted
term collective novel for novels which are created by several authors in cooperation.
32
On Devotio moderna and book production, see KOCK 1999.
32
manuscripts extant, waiting to be analyzed. According to van Anrooij, two

important changes have taken place recently to enhance our understanding of
miscellanies: for one thing “it appears a rule rather than an exception that
miscellanies were produced in several phases, which means that the original
design of a manuscript can be quite different from the eventual result.”33 This
implies that it might not be enough to look for just one function of a manu-
script, that we rather need to be open to the possibility that different phases
can reflect different functions over time. The second conclusion Anrooij
draws is that a clarification need be made on the concept of “composite vol-
ume.” It seems solutions to this problem now exist, through the efforts of
several scholars: more on that in Chapter 2.
A more recent conference, held at the University of Cassino in 2003, gave
evidence of the rapid progress in this field of research: investigations are
nowadays excitingly manifold and wide-ranging. Focus has shifted to in-
clude more of codicological studies, discussion of terminologies covering all
kinds of medieval multitext books, statistical treatment of larger library col-
lections, typologies of different kinds, the reader’s perspective, and much
more. The proceedings of the conference appeared as Il codice miscellaneo:
tipologie e funzioni, edited by Edoardo Crisci and Oronzo Pecere (Segno e
testo 2, 2004). Five of the fourteen contributions are expressly devoted to
Greek and Byzantine materials; the others are either more general in their
scope or deal with books in Latin, Italian and French.34 As far as terminology
for multitext books is concerned, I found both Peter Gumbert’s and Marilena
Maniaci’s discussions very helpful. As will be obvious in Chapter 3, I follow
Gumbert more closely (partly a result of my writing in English and not in
Italian).
Studies of Byzantine multitext books

Inquiries into Byzantine multitext books have been fewer than into their
Western counterparts, especially in the capacity as “whole books” and not
merely as containers of certain selected texts. The impression conveyed is
that up until recently it has been a matter of isolated efforts, with no general
acknowledgement of how large a part the multitext books play in Byzantine
book culture. I will mention a few studies to illustrate their different kinds of
scope. The first is one of the earliest examples where attention was given
33
ANROOIJ 1999, 22.
34
The following articles concern Greek and Byzantine miscellaneous books: Marilena Ma-
niaci, “Il codice greco ‘non unitario’: Tipologie e terminologia” (75–107); Edoardo Crisci, “I
più antichi codici miscellanei greci” (109–144); Filippo Ronconi, “Per una tipologia del
codice miscellaneo greco in epoca mediobizantina” (145–182); Daniele Bianconi, “Libri e
mani: Sulla formazione di alcune miscellanee dell’età dei Paleologi” (311–363); Michael D.
Reeve, “Dionysius the Periegete in Miscellanies” (365–378).
33
specifically to miscellaneous manuscripts. The three others are more recent

and of interest in a comparison of method and aims.
In 1911 C. F. Georg Heinrici published his Griechisch-Byzantinische
Gesprächsbücher und Verwandtes aus Sammelhandschriften, in which he set
out to explore a text genre: erotapokriseis or “question-and-answer litera-
ture.” Still, he recognized that texts of that kind were transmitted primarily
in miscellaneous manuscripts and took some of these as his point of depar-
ture, describing their contents and character, and surmising their use.
Heinrici’s interest lay in theological miscellaneous manuscripts: he empha-
sized their popular character (“bei ihnen liegt der Schwerpunkt in der Volk-
stümlichkeit”) and saw them as giving the truest and most lucid picture of
the interests and perspectives of the Byzantine Church.35 Even if Heinrici did
not esteem the miscellanies very highly—likening them to “das Unterholz
im Walde der patristischen Literatur”—he called attention to the wealth of
subject matter presented in the text collections.36 Though they are all unique,
their distinctive features may give us a clue to which interests lay behind
each of them. As for the geneses of miscellanies, Heinrici speculates about a
possible development from Bible-, Psalter- and Gospel manuscripts with
commentaries attached, and from the catenae, the exegetic texts which were
made up of connected series (chains) of extracts from the writings of the
Church Fathers.37
In !
"

#"$ ! ": A Miscellany in the Tradition of
Michael Psellos (1992), Ilias Pontikos gives a presentation of a thirteenth-
century composite book containing mainly rhetorical and philosophical texts.
Codex Baroccianus 131 is a comprehensive volume of 541 folios, originat-
ing from Nicaea and Constantinople around 1250–1280.38 Pontikos has lim-
ited himself to a thorough study of what he describes as a unique miscellany
inside the larger composite, i.e. ff. 397v–446v. This seems to form an
autonomous section, copied by a single scribe around 1250 and comprising
short treatises on a variety of subjects: rhetorical, medical, meteorological
and theological matters are touched upon.39 Pontikos argues that a significant
35
HEINRICI 1911, 6.
36
“Was wissenschaftliches und erbauliches Gemeingut war, ist in ihnen regellos in bunter
Folge aufgehäuft, längere und kürzere Auszüge aus den patristischen Klassikern, [...] Florile-
gien, Gnomensammlungen, Glossarien, Namenlexika mit Deutungen, dogmatische, liturgi-
sche, kasuistische, kirchenrechtliche, ethische, geschichtliche, chronologische, naturwissen-
schaftliche, astrologische, rhetorische, grammatische Traktate, Apokalyptisches, Apokryphes,
Legenden, zwischendurch auch medizinische Rezepte, Beschwörungen und sonstige Zeugnis-
se für den Aberglauben der Zeit” (HEINRICI 1911, 6). Although Heinrici’s enumeration of
different kinds of texts is quite inclusive and concerns miscellaneous books as a group, it is in
fact not wide of the mark to fit as a description of the single codex we are dealing with here,
Gr 8.
37
HEINRICI 1911, 7.
38
For a description of the whole manuscript, see WILSON 1978 and WILSON 1966.
39
Wilson suggests that this scribe might tentatively be identified as Nikephoros Alyates
(1966, 306).
34
part of the texts emanates from the intellectual milieu of the Byzantine poly-
math Michael Psellos (1018–c.1081) and his contemporaries (for example
Symeon Seth). The miscellany was further enriched with Aristotelian mate-
rial in the twelfth century (Psellos is known as a fervid advocate of Plato as
opposed to Aristotle), maybe in the circle of scholars around Anna Kom-
nena, wherein Aristotle’s works received special attention.40 Pontikos calls
attention to the fact that, taken as a whole, the Baroccianus 131 consists of
miscellaneous works from authors of primarily the twelfth century, and sug-
gests that this could indicate that the anonymous compiler of the miscellany
transmitted in the Baroccianus copy, ff. 397–446, may actually have been
one of these authors who belonged to the group which took part in and fur-
thered the twelfth-century Aristotelian revival in Byzantium.41 An interesting
part of Ilias Pontikos’ study, from my perspective, is the discussion of the
purpose of the miscellany, why it was compiled in the first place. He elabo-
rates on this question in chapter IV, arguing that it may have been created as
a teacher’s compendium and used as such in the enkyklios paideia of
twelfth-century Constantinople. Regrettably Pontikos stops at this point,
having given an outline of the genesis of the compendium: we do not get an
answer as to how this compendium or miscellany came to fit into the larger
composite book (Baroccianus 131) of mid-thirteenth century Nicaea, or
whether its use would still be the same when put into the new and much
more voluminous textual mix a century later.
In his article “Literarische Interessen in der Palaiologenzeit anhand von
Gelehrtencodices” (1996) Peter Schreiner shows how miscellanies can mir-
ror the intellectual interests of a certain period of time or a specific person.
The “Gelehrtencodex” is a multitext book compiled by one or several
scribes, which furthermore displays signs of continued study, e.g. in the form
of added notes and interlinear glosses. Schreiner presents a case study of
Vaticanus gr. 914, which is an autograph by Isidore of Kiev. He traces the
intellectual interests of this theologian and humanist by looking at Isidore’s
selection of texts, his scribal working method, and the notes that he added.
With his study Schreiner indicates a promising path in the study of scholars’
miscellanies, arguing that the combined use of palaeography, codicology and
literary studies may contribute new insights not least in cases where external
biographical information is scarce.
Finally, a recent study of miscellaneous manuscripts which saw their ori-
gin in the ninth to twelfth centuries. In I manoscritti greci miscellanei
(2007), Filippo Ronconi draws attention to the fact that two main approaches
have thus far dominated the studies of miscellaneous manuscripts: one is the
focus on the “mise-en-recueil,” how the texts are distributed in the con-
40
PONTIKOS 1992, xxxix.
41
PONTIKOS 1992, xl.
35
tainer/codex; the other is the container’s physical or material structure.42

According to Ronconi, the center of attention has been on the material as-
pects, while the texts have been considered primarily in their spatial dimen-
sion, their extension in relation to the accessible writing area. Ronconi ar-
gues that these two approaches should be supplemented with the historical-
philological perspective, the study of the texts as such. An integrated study
of the manuscripts that takes the palaeographical and philological details of
the texts into due account, may contribute, inter alia, to the reconstruction of
the genesis of a miscellaneous manuscript, through the tracking down of
model manuscripts. The characteristics of the scribal hands are also impor-
tant here, since the individual traits of a hand as well as signs of scribal col-
laboration may clarify what kind of cultural products these manuscripts
were. By way of a number of case studies on middle Byzantine manuscripts
Ronconi dexterously demonstrates the variety and complexity in this field of
research.43
The study of Gr 8 will in some ways resemble the aforementioned, in
others not. Like Pontikos and Schreiner I have only one codex in focus. A
comparative study of manuscripts related to Gr 8 would indeed be interest-
ing to undertake, but it cannot be accomodated within the scope of this
study. Pontikos, Schreiner and Ronconi are concordant in their ambition to
situate the codices in their original cultural milieu. In this Pontikos quarries
deeper, but he also breaks off at the stage of looking at only one part of Co-
dex Baroccianus 131; in addition, he offers an edition of the texts.
Schreiner’s study is only an article and therefore not fully comparable with
the other two items, but his methodological discussion is important and his
emphasis on the combination of codicology with literary studies attractive.
He suggests that manuscripts may be seen as a “psychograms,” a means for
profiling a certain scribe, owner, or user.44 The significance of the scribe is
highlighted by both Schreiner and Ronconi. But whereas Schreiner gives
much attention to the individual person behind the codex, Ronconi concen-
trates more on an assessment of different types of multitext codices; cultural
history in both cases, but on various levels of particularity and general fea-
tures.
The study of Gr 8 may be characterized as follows. In common with
Schreiner’s study, I deal with an example of a late Byzantine codex marked
by the cultural situation of the fifteenth century—the end of the empire, the
migration westwards of Byzantine intellectuals, the Church union discus-
42
RONCONI 2007, 17ff.
43
Ronconi’s book came to my attention at a very late stage, and I have thus not had the op-
portunity to benefit from his presentation in the preparation of this thesis.
44
“[D]ie Forderung, die Handschrift auch als Psychogramm des gelehrten Kopisten oder
Besitzers und Benutzers zu deuten, sollte doch nicht außer acht gelassen werden als For-
schungsziel, in dem Paläographie, Kodikologie und Literaturgeschichte zusammenwirken”
(SCHREINER 1996, 215).
36
sions and the humanist movement in Italy. The codicological structure as

well as the scribe and his work procedure make up one center of attention.
Another will be the literary (and not so literary) contents of the codex. The
progression will be along these lines: Chapter 2 gives a background on ter-
minology and on the technical aspects of analyzing multitext codices. Chap-
ter 3 is the codicological investigation, where the book is dissected in all its
structural parts. In Chapter 4 the texts are in focus; I group and characterize
them all in an attempt to find typological connections throughout the whole
book as well as in relation to the separate structural units. The aim is to
sketch a portrait of the book and of the scribe behind it. If Chapter 4 deals
with the central tendencies, finding the median so to speak, Chapter 5 is an
illustration of the sprawling tendency in miscellanies, where sometimes the
range between extremes can be very wide as regards the reflected interests.
In this instance three disparate texts have been selected for comprehensive
presentation.
37
2 Composite Books and Miscellanies
Multitext books
What expectations do modern readers generally have of books and the con-
tents of books? When we go to the bookstore and browse, we usually find
inside the covers one novel, or one biography, or a manual over one kind of
technical equipment; the book is probably written by one author or maybe by
more than one author but collaboratively, as in the collective novel. But
there are other models: a book can hold the collected works by one and the
same author, or a choice of those works (or just part of one work—when the
work in its entirety is too long to fit into just one volume). It can be a collec-
tion of essays by different authors but over a common theme. It could cover,
say, Polish poetry from the interwar period. Whenever there are more than
one text in the book, we can easily find a common denominator for the text
collection. What we do not expect to find is a book which contains one text
on computer programming, followed by one text on effective bargaining,
followed by George Orwell’s Animal Farm, followed by an enumeration of
household remedies against migraine or ulceritis. I might, as a reader, be
interested in all of these things, but they do not belong in the same book.
There was a time, however, when a book could cover subjects as diverse
as those mentioned above. More often than not the medieval handwritten
book held two or more texts. One could almost say that the monograph was
the exception. When did this happen and why? To start from the other
chronological end: yes, most likely Greek books in antiquity were mono-
graphs—by force, more or less, since the format of the book roll could not
accommodate larger quantities of text. According to Theodore Skeat a stan-
dard roll during the Greco-Roman period was made up from 20 sheets (kol-
lemata) of papyrus “glued” together.45 With the normal sheet breadth of 16–
18 cm the standard roll would thus measure 320–360 cm. This means that a
text the length of Plato’s Phaedo would fit when written in a “compressed
hand,” while a less crammed hand would comfortably yield enough space to
fit in one or two tragedies or at most three short songs of Homer.46 Thus, if
45
SKEAT 1982, 169.
46
GALLO 1986, 13. Rhetorical texts are often found written in narrower columns, i.e. requir-
38
Multitext books
several works were to be put in the same book roll, it had to be either small-
format genres, like epigrams or apophthegms, or else excerpts from longer
works.
There is, however, a curious formulation in Plutarch, Life of Antony 58,
which might have a bearing on the question of the papyrus roll being a
monograph or not. Plutarch speaks about the Pergamene library and how
“ ""#$% *#” where located there. Likewise, Tzetzes in
his Preface to Aristophanes gives some numbers for the library in Alexan-
dria, viz., “"$"#% + < =>

, *# +
< "$"#% @\.” Researchers have discussed this at
some length around the turn of the last century, but I have not found any
recent contributions to this matter.47 The numbers have generated more
comments than the categories of books mentioned. But even if the figures
themselves might be inaccurate owing to palaeographical mistakes during
transmission, there ought to be some explanation for the terms “mixed, sim-
ple, and unmixed rolls.” It is difficult to imagine what else could be referred
to besides contents. Perhaps the monograph, the one-text book (roll) was not
totally dominant after all?
If we assume that the “mixed” rolls refer to multitext books, there is still
room for different interpretations as to what they contained. Some material
evidence of multitext books from extant papyrus finds may help us out here.
Most often a roll of this kind contains a few texts—usually poems—by the
same author. Some present more than one author but similar kinds of text, as
for instance, the “garland” of Hellenistic epigrams by many different au-
thors, which Meleagros compiled.48 There are also a small number which we
might call miscellanies: rolls containing several texts or parts of texts from
various genres and by different authors. These are usually considered to have
been created for educational purposes. A well-known case is the Cairo papy-
rus, “Livre d’écolier,” from the 3rd century BCE, a roll which on its 2½ me-
ter of papyrus embraced passages from Euripides’ Phoenician Women and
Ino, from book five of the Odyssey, a couple of epigrams and New Comedy
fragments, in addition to syllabaries, lists, and a mathematical manual.49
ing more writing material since this would swell the number of blank spaces in-between the
columns. Poetry, on the other hand, could be written in volumes of smaller size than the stan-
dard format mentioned above.
47
See DEVREESSE 1954, 69; FRASER 1972, I, 329 and II, 485, with further references. The
edition of Flacelière and Chambry presents a different reading, in accordance with Reiske’s
conjecture: ""#$% *# (à peu près deux cent mille volumes). But in the
light of Tzetzes’ wording, the text had perhaps better be kept as it stands in the manuscripts.
Cf. FLACELIÈRE & CHAMBRY 1977, 157.
48
See, for instance, Kathryn Gutzwiller’s endeavor to establish the order of these epigrams in
the very books, i.e., the book rolls (GUTZWILLER 1998).
49
P. Cairo inv. 65445; Pack2 2642. “Le contenu du papyrus est d’un caractère scolaire évi-
dent; mais l’écriture n’est pas celle d’un écolier. C’est une sorte de manuel, où l’enfant pou-
vait s’exercer à lire at à compter, en même temps qu’il y trouvait diverses notions utiles à son
39
In the era of book rolls there are examples of what might be seen as an-
other kind of “fore-runner” of the multitext codex. The use of wooden cases
(
^_ or "%
) for three or four rolls is attested already in classical and
Hellenistic times (for example in Xenophon, Anabasis VII, 5, 14): created to
meet the physical demands for containment these receptacles would also
entail the opportunity to gather small corpora of texts.50 We know of the
ancient grammarians’ habit to make three-partite or four-partite sets, not
only of the works of tragedians and comedians, but also of Plato’s dialogues,
to take one prose example.51 It seems that ancient and medieval source mate-
rial points to an “originally” (i.e. going back to Hellenistic libraries) alpha-
betic order within these groups of tragedies and comedies. But then again,
we also see in some manuscripts a different order—or discontinuity—within
the same groupings. According to Alain Blanchard this goes back to the
moment of transcription from scroll to codex: “Le cadre originel de ces
désordres (the corpora in non-alphabetic order) est sans doute constitué par
de petits codex, de trois et quatres unités, correspondant chacun au contenu
d’une boîte.”52
But the radical change came with the codex. At first the book format
changed from roll to single quire codex, an operation that saved writing
space and thus the expense of writing material.53 Or, inversely, you could
afford to fit another text into the same length of papyrus. The next develop-
ment of the codex form—the codex made up of several quires—gave the
advantage of accommodating larger amounts of text into the same volume.
Thus it was during late antiquity that the multitext book could rise in impor-
tance and become a common alternative to the unitary, single-text book
which had so far dominated the field.54 In his survey of early miscellaneous
codices, which are extant in more or less fragmentary state, Edoardo Crisci
shows that the miscellaneous book was in the initial stages a rather marginal
product, geographically as well as in other ways. It was modest in its graphic
and textual appearance, often written by a non-professional scribe on writing
material of less than average quality. These unpretentious books seem to
éducation” (GUÉRAUD & JOUGUET 1938, xiv). On its contents, see further GUÉRAUD & JOU-
GUET 1938, xv–xxiv.
50
On the term
^_, see ATSALOS 1971, 113–128.
51
D. L. III. 61: ` \, { @
|
} ~ <
,
#<$ #
#<. Anton-Hermann Chroust suggests that Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257–
180 BCE) and others were concerned with the arrangement of the Corpus Platonicum “in
order to make it more accessible and understandable to the general public or, perhaps, in order
to display their philological, philosophical or literary talents” (CHROUST 1965, 36). The prac-
tical logistics of the library are not explicitly mentioned but must have been an important
starting-point for a librarian like Aristophanes.
52
BLANCHARD 1989, 187.
53
SKEAT 1982, 175.
54
“Al contrario degli antichi rotoli di papiro, le pergamene bizantine e quelle del Medioevo
latino sono per lo più, specie da una certa età in poi, grossi volumi contenenti vaste raccolte
delle opere di un autore, o anche miscellanee” (PASQUALI 1952, 36).
40
Multitext books
have been produced for immediately practical and multifarious use. Varied
in content but still with a clear scope, they became “uno strumento librario
efficace” for Greek and Coptic readers in early Christian surroundings,
whether for studies or work, for personal reading or collective moral edifica-
tion, for circulation of doctrinal polemics or just sharing a good reading ex-
perience with your friends.55
In his article “Dal libro unitario al libro miscellaneo” Armando Petrucci
also focuses on these early stages of the production and use of miscellaneous
books. But his definition of miscellany is more limited than Crisci’s.
Petrucci deals with the book “in which several texts of different authors are
more or less coherently juxtaposed in a single container.”56 He excludes from
his survey multitext books with only one author represented (corpora). Fur-
ther, he leaves out anthologies of excerpts or of citations, liturgical books,
so-called composite books where different texts share a common container
despite being written separately in successive phases over time, and later
copies of early miscellanies. I can see why Petrucci sets these limits, and that
they are useful for his purpose of tracing the beginnings of the miscellany.
But in a wider context, and certainly for my investigation, this strict delimi-
tation of the phenomenon would be counter-productive. The coherent mis-
cellany is but one variety of many in the area of multitext books, and if we
wish to assess how these books reflect on the reading habits and transmis-
sion of texts, we must see to the whole field. We do need to take into ac-
count these other appearances of multitext books: the school exercises, the
re-use of manuscripts, and the later additions of new text(s) to a scroll or
codex. It has to do with the expectancy of the reader (and of the scribe):
what you have seen in other places, namely in composite books, seems less
farfetched when you are up to create a “miscellany proper,” i.e. an inten-
tional copying of different authors and texts into the same container. What is
crucial is the function of the book. This functional—user’s—perspective will
also be explored in relation to Gr 8. But before we proceed to the analysis of
Gr 8 from this and other angles, we need to disentangle some of the terms
and concepts which appear in the area of multitext books.
Terminology current at the time

Can we learn from Byzantine vocabulary how multitext books were looked
upon? What is obvious, according to Basile Atsalos, is the abundance of
terms related to the codex, their variation, concurrence and fluidity. It seems
that among the various terms which denominate monographs ("$"# –
""#$ – "$"#,
$ – $, \#
,
^_, as well as diminutives
and other variant forms of these) most of them are also employed for the
55
CRISCI 2004, 142–144.
56
PETRUCCI 1986, 173.
41
miscellaneous codex, which Atsalos defines as “un recueil [...] des ouvrages
portant sur le même sujet ou sur des sujets différents.”57 As if this were not
enough: sometimes the very same terms designate the separate parts of a text
embracing more than one volume, or individual works in an author’s produc-
tion, and also quite often individual texts and treatises inside a miscellany:
parfois, dans les manuscrits, et surtout dans les “codices miscellanei” ces
termes sont utilisés, non pour indiquer le “codex” lui-même comme matériel,
mais un ouvrage ou un traité qui y est contenu. Cette dernière notion est
presque de règle en ce qui concerne les auteurs.58
This means that from a codicological point of view the Byzantine terminol-
ogy for codices is of little help in assessing what a material might have
looked like, and neither would it seem to yield any chronological hints as to
which terms designated what at what time. This negative evidence—or ab-
sence—of a specific terminology for codices miscellanei in Byzantine writ-
ings can nevertheless be taken as an indicator of the “normality” of multitext
books. The miscellaneous contents did not make these books stand out from
other kinds of books so as to require a special terminology. They were sim-
ply “books”, looked at and treated as any other book.59
The container and its contents

Physical structure
Multitext books can be approached mainly from two perspectives: the physi-
cal structure of the book and the contents. Terminologies have often been
obscured by the mixing of these two aspects. Even Denis Muzerelle’s so
fundamental Vocabulaire codicologique is deficient in this area, since his
terms “do not constitute a logically coherent system; they mix reference to
the physical makeup with reference to the contents.”60
57
ATSALOS 1971, 41.
58
ATSALOS 1971, 42.
59
According to Spyridon Lambros, a few late terms—i.e., terms which appear in post-
Byzantine manuscripts—seem to denote miscellanies specifically: =\
, #<+
""#$, #""# and ""###
=#<$. They are mentioned by Lambros in
his revised version of E.M. Thompsons Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (Thomp-
son – Lambros, %"
#' ()" "
"* + /""* %"
# ;<
( =
> ?
$ =#"
%. /=
, Athens 1903, 108–109).
Atsalos, however, is skeptic about their importance since they were not in general use (ATSA-
LOS 1971, 41 and 66–68). I still find it interesting that these terms do appear at this late stage
in Byzantine book culture. Even if we find only scattered examples of them, it might at any
rate hint at a rising awareness of or need for distinctions as to different kinds of books.
60
GUMBERT 2004, 20. Cf. MUNK OLSEN 1998. The terms that apply to these matters are found
in MUZERELLE 1985, § 143 (Aspects généraux du livre: le codex) and § 431 (Contenu de
volume: types de contenu), and also in the web site (http://vocabulaire.irht.cnrs.fr/vocab.htm).
42
The reason why it is so important to establish the structure or stratigraphy

of multitext books is the large variation in how handwritten books were cre-
ated, and also the fact that codices are not stable entities. They can be—and
often are—rebound, and concomitant changes in the structure can take place:
parts of the original book may be lost or deliberately left out, other parts may
be added, the internal order of the quires may be confused, or new texts may
be added on blank pages long after the primary text or text collection was
created. To analyze the text(s) in such a manuscript without awareness of the
“archaeology” is a precarious undertaking. It is problematical to draw any
conclusions as to how texts belong together. Likewise one cannot uncondi-
tionally assume that facts of origin and date in one part of the manuscript are
transferable to other parts: this has to be established for each part individu-
ally.
What “parts” am I talking about? The structural units commonly dealt
with in a manuscript description are the quires of a codex; information on
these is given in the collational formulae of modern manuscript catalogs.
Certainly we need to know how the book is built up from quires, but this
must be related to the texts. That is how we can begin to map out the codico-
logical units (éléments codicologiques, in Birger Munk Olsen’s terms),
which are the self-contained “building modules” of a codex.61
A codex may, of course, have been created in one single operation, when
“somebody decides to make a book with a certain text or set of texts, or to
have it made; then the work is executed, and at a certain moment it is
ready.”62 This means that the codex contains only one codicological unit (a
so-called monomerous codex). But often the procedure of codex production
is a lot more complicated than this. To find out whether a codex contains two
or more codicological units, you have to look for the boundaries between
them. Normally these can be found when quire boundaries coincide with the
ending of one text or group of texts, a new text beginning on the next quire.
But each case must be analyzed closely; there may be an incidental ending of
a text on the last verso of a quire even when the next quire is part of the
same scribal operation. One also needs to observe other kinds of breaks or
boundaries which may give us clues as to how the codex was put together.
These may be a change in handwriting, or in writing material (a new paper
or parchment quality or a different watermark or even a change in the di-
mensions of the leaves). The layout of the page (mise-en-page) can be dif-
ferent. It may be a change in decoration, or in the quire signatures. Some-
times the outer leaves of a quire are worn or soiled, indicating that this part
of the codex was used as a separate booklet before being bound in its present
61
Module: “a separable component, frequently one that is interchangeable with others, for
assembly into units [for our purposes, read: books] of different size, complexity, or function,”
as the Random House Dictionary (rev. ed., New York 1988) puts it.
62
GUMBERT 2004, 23.
43
surrounding.63 Often the last quire of a codicological unit differs from the
rest of the quires; maybe a couple of leaves are cut out, or have been added
to fit in the whole text. A proficient scribe might have gradually maximized
the amount of text which goes into the writing area, written the words more
tightly and added a line or two. If his or her calculation was correct no addi-
tion of leaves to the quire would be necessary. Another important indication
of unit endings is the presence of blank pages (which might eventually have
been filled with new text).
All these changes and irregularities might indicate that we have identified
a codicological unit, but every instance must be judged carefully on its own
premises, the crucial point being that its content forms a self-sufficient
whole.64 When the codex contains two or more codicological units it is called
a composite. Since the definition of codicological units demands that we
now have different, and autonomous, texts in the units, a composite is by
definition also a multitext codex. We will come back to these concepts in
greater detail in the analysis of Gr 8 in Chapter 3.
The relation between contents and structure

Apart from the physical structure, multitext books can also be approached
from the perspective of contents. The combination of different texts in one
book can be more or less complex. Many of the terminological discrepancies
originate in different ways of dealing with this complexity. An obvious ex-
ample is the term miscellany or miscellaneous codex which seems to have
been given as many definitions as there are scholars in this area. Should this
term cover all kinds of multitext books, both the structurally homogeneous
and the composite codices? Should it designate only the contentually hetero-
geneous or should we include other possible text combinations as well: dif-
ferent texts by the same author (corpora), different kinds of texts which have
a common use (e.g. liturgical text collections)? Would collections of ex-
cerpts qualify, or must the texts be complete? I have tried to avoid this prob-
lem by using the overall term “multitext book” for the whole field, regard-
less of structural differences and regardless of how similar or diverse the
texts seem.
Some prefer to use the term miscellany in contrast to the composite, so
that the miscellany would always be monomerous or at least homogenetic,
i.e. produced in the same circle and approximately at the same time. This is
63
For further discussions of the booklet together with examples from English composite
manuscripts, see the articles by Pamela Robinson and by Ralph Hanna III (ROBINSON 1980;
HANNA 1986).
64
Peter Gumbert gives a full and very distinct definition: “a codicological unit is a discrete
number of quires, worked in a single operation—unless it is an enriched, enlarged or extended
unit, containing a complete text or set of texts—unless it is an unfinished, defective or de-
pendent unit.” For further clarification, see GUMBERT 2004.
44
unfortunate, because it maintains the confusion of the structural and conten-

tual aspects. It might also put too much focus on the stratigraphy: even
though we, as researchers, need to establish how the books were constructed,
we should keep in mind that the medieval readers probably saw little reason
to treat composite books differently from homogeneous books. If you copy a
composite you end up with a structurally homogeneous book: the contents
are exactly the same, so why call one of them miscellaneous and not the
other? Since the concept of miscellaneity is so problematic, my suggestion
would be to leave the term miscellany out of the structural discussion alto-
gether and reserve it for the contents, as is also common usage when it
comes to modern literature.65 Here we could be generous and simply let it
stand for “containing various texts” and then define subgroups. For the struc-
tural differences I think it is better to use the terms discussed above (the
monomerous codex, the composite, and further specifications thereof, all
based on the analysis of codicological units) and, hopefully, minimize the
confusion.
In German (and Swedish) one can indicate the structural difference be-
tween monomerous miscellanies and composite miscellanies by using the
terms Sammelhandschrift and Sammelband respectively. Even if these terms
give a first and very useful preliminary sorting, they cannot account for all
the variations in stratigraphy. Grouping multitext books as monomerous or
composite books is just the first step. To grasp the stratigraphy in greater
detail we must be able to specify all the different instances where a book has
changed its appearance over time. This is where Gumbert introduces such
concepts as the enriched, enlarged, and extended codicological unit. Another
practical aspect of this is covered by Erik Kwakkel’s concept usage unit
(gebruikseenheid), or what Gumbert designates as file.66
But let us consider the definition of miscellany further (apart from it being
monomerous or composite, and apart from establishing possible usage units).
As for the definition of contents, the wording “containing various texts” is
rather vague. What about the book containing various texts by the same au-
thor? Often it is referred to as corpus. I prefer to restrict the use of “corpus”
to denominate an author’s total production. So the book containing various
texts by the same author can in my opinion still be a miscellany provided
that there is a “mixture” or “assortment” in some other way, for example in
thematics, subject matter, or genre.67
65
Cf. Oxford English Dictionary, s. v.: “A mixture, medley, or assortment; (a collection of)
miscellaneous objects or items […]. A book, volume, or literary production containing mis-
cellaneous pieces on various subjects.”
66
KWAKKEL 2002, 13–15; GUMBERT 2004, 34. I interpret Kwakkel’s productie-eenheid as
more or less equivalent to codicological unit. But I prefer Kwakkel’s term “usage unit” over
Gumbert’s “file,” since it is more immediately transparent.
67
Crisci suggests that we call this an author’s miscellany, “una miscellanea, per così dire,
d’autore” (CRISCI 2004, 109, note 1). Cf. also Filippo Ronconi, who in his typology of the
miscellaneo disorganico stipulates that it comprises “testi eterogenei, oltre che per autore, per
45
As for anthologies of excerpts or citations: when the form is unitary and

the collection can be perceived as creating a new whole of similar extracts,
then I would prefer using the widely accepted terms florilegium, anthology
et cetera. In one way they are multitext books, but in another they may be
seen as something new and “unitary”—a single-text work which gets its own
transmission as a whole. If, on the other hand, the excerpts are varying in
form and length, in genre and subject matter, and the collection does not
seem to create a new unity, a new “work,” then it is in my view a miscellany,
regardless of whether the texts are complete or not.
This distinction is also valid for other multitext books: a tetraevangelion
contains four texts by different authors, but in text transmission they most
often stay together as a whole. I would not treat the New Testament or the
Bible as a miscellany, despite the fact that they actually do adhere to the
basic definition: they contain various texts by different authors and in differ-
ent genres. This has to do with tradition and transmission history. On the
other hand, if a book contains a choice of texts from the Bible in addition to
some assorted apocryphal texts the definition is less straightforward. The
“whole” is not present anymore, a new “collection” of miscellaneous pieces
has been created. To sum up: some kind of heterogeneity in its contents is
needed for a book to be called a miscellany, and the texts which are gathered
should normally have a tradition of being transmitted separately, outside of
this collection. Of course, rare texts might not be found at all in other con-
texts, but that would be an exception to the overall rule.
It has further been proposed that we distinguish between organized/or-
ganic and disorganic miscellanies, according to the possibility for us to per-
ceive an organizational principle behind the choice of texts. In Muzerelle’s
Vocabulaire a distinction is made between the recueil organisé, an assem-
blage of which we can make sense, where the combination of texts corre-
sponds to an intention, and the other extreme, the recueil factice, where the
combination of different “pièces” has been made seemingly in an arbitrary
fashion and purely for the practical needs of conservation in a library.68 In-
between these extremes there will always be cases where one cannot make
out what the possible intention once was, whether units were combined for
practical, economical, or intellectual reasons. Here it is once again important
to beware of falling into the trap of mixing structure with contents. A com-
posite consisting of two or more distinct codicological units, can be very
well organized textwise, so that the purpose which underlay the collection is
evident for all, while a monomerous codex may look as if it has been created
by a mere toss-up. To estimate the level of coherence one must in each case
be prepared to dig deeper, analyzing both the texts and the physical structure
of the book to see how these aspects come together. What we really need, in
tema e/o genere” (RONCONI 2004, 146).

68
See MUZERELLE 1985, § 431.10 and § 431.16.
46
order to reach a comprehensive view of what “coherence expectancy” people

may have had on their multitext books, is to undertake more thorough inves-
tigations of miscellaneous codices, without taking a premature stance on
their (possible lack of) organization. Fusion need not always mean confu-
sion.
I also wonder if it is reasonable to treat a composite bound in the twelfth
century differently from one bound in the sixteenth. Is it just the modern
librarian who gets dismissed for making an “arbitrary combination,” even
though the twelfth-century librarian or book owner could have made a simi-
lar decision?69 Is it not true that the personal miscellany, the Hausbuch or
zibaldone, is—among other things—a gathering of texts for precisely practi-
cal reasons of “conservation”?70 Certainly, we should try to establish when
and how a composite was made, since this provides information on how the
texts were transmitted together and in what form the book was available to
readers at different stages. But we must keep in mind that there are many
reasons why texts become situated together. A book is, after all, a practical
object, a container which is meant to be used. And the (in our eyes) less ra-
tional text combination may have worked just fine for the readers at the time.
As Lynn Thorndike puts it: “strict unity in subject-matter is by no means
always observed. Or at least what seem to us anomalies and inconsistencies
creep in, but they should perhaps warn and inform us of a different mental
outlook then.”71 Well organized or not, the miscellanies still have a story to
tell us.
To conclude, let me give a short recapitulation of my own definitions in
this area. I use the term multitext books to describe the whole field of books
that are not monographs, that is, they contain at least two separate texts, but
more often several or even a large number of texts.72 In its physical structure
a book can be homogeneous or not. The homogeneous, monomerous book
69
Hanna calls these postmedieval constellations “binding accidents” (HANNA 1996, 22 and
285, note 3).
70
Hausbuch refers to a book containing a person’s own correspondence and literary undertak-
ings, often in addition to selected readings from other authors, usually a manuscript created
over an extended period of time. A well-known instance is John Chortasmenos’ autograph
manuscript, Vindob. Suppl. gr. 75 (HUNGER 1969, esp. 54–63). On the term Hausbuch, see
also HUNGER 1989, 74f.
71
THORNDIKE 1946, 98–99.
72
J. P. Gumbert refers this term to Jan Willem Klein (GUMBERT 1999, 28, n. 1). But it seems
that Klein uses the term meerteksthandschrift more or less as an equivalent to verzamel-
handschrift, that is, referring to the book which is made at one sweep and not put together
from different components or on different occasions. A short text written as a separate quire is
in Klein’s terminology called a libellus: “Meerdere van zulke libelli kunnen verzameld zijn in
een convoluut [...]. Maar ook kunnen meerdere libelli gekopieerd worden tot een ‘meertekst-
handschrift’ of verzamelhandschrift [...]. Niet alleen ‘enkeltekst-handschriften’, maar ook
verschillende ‘meertekst-handschriften’ kunnen tot een convoluut worden samengebonden”
(KLEIN 1995, 26). This means that my usage of the term multitext book does not correspond
completely with Klein’s, since I let it cover both versamelhandschriften and convoluten and
all the variants in-between these.
47
consists of only one codicological unit, i.e. it was made at one go, so to
speak. The heterogeneous, composite book has a multiple genesis, i.e. it
consists of at least two codicological units. The texts may be related in
content or not; in the latter case I use the term miscellany. Note that this does
not imply any statement on the codicological structure: the miscellany can be
a structurally homogeneous or heterogeneous book, the fundamental element
is that it contains texts of various (miscellaneous) contents.
48
BRINGING OUT THE STRUCTURE
3 Codicological Description and Analysis
In this chapter I present a thorough codicological analysis of Codex Upsa-

liensis Graecus 8. Firstly, I examine those aspects of Gr 8 which apply to
more than one unit, e.g. the book block, the binding, and the scribes. Sec-
ondly, I discuss what criteria may help us to distinguish the boundaries be-
tween different codicological units. Establishing these is indispensable in the
case of composite codices, since we will otherwise risk drawing conclusions
based on—and accurate for—only one part of a book but invalid for another
part of the same book. Then the units are dealt with separately by way of
brief and rather formalized descriptions and analyses when such are called
for. The focus of analysis differs from unit to unit according to the various
problems involved. A short discussion ends the chapter. As an auxiliary
there is a codicological table which gives an outline of all units in the codex.
This is found in Appendix 2 at the end of this book.
General aspects of the codex
Provenance and further vicissitudes

In a catalog description of a manuscript there are usually some notes on the
provenance and history of the manuscript. One could argue that this belongs
to book history at large rather than to a codicological description. The evi-
dence, though, will often be what one is able to find out by scrutinizing the
codex itself: we may, for instance, be able to trace the origin of a book by
the quality and watermarks of the paper, by identifying a scribe or scripto-
rium—if we are lucky, the scribe might even have left an explicit subscrip-
tion—and the book’s further destinies can be unveiled by owners’ notes, or
remaining library shelf-marks. Sometimes external evidence, like inventories
and letters, may add further details to the overall picture.1 As a general pres-
1
The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, for example, recommends that one include under
the caption “History” information about “Schreiber, Herkunftsort, Entstehungszeit, Auftrag-
geber, Leservermerke, örtlich bestimmbare oder sprachlich vom Text der Handschrift abwei-
chende Glossen mit Zeitangabe; Besitz- und Kaufeinträge, Exlibris, Wappen, Stempel von
Vorbesitzern; Nennung in mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskatalogen; alte Ausleihvermerke; alte
Signaturen” (Richtlinien 1992, 11).
entation of Gr 8 has already been given in Chapter 1, I will be brief on the

history of the codex here, trying to keep to what is strictly observable.
Library shelf-marks
The earlier shelf-marks from different library arrangements are known to us
partly from Gr 8 itself: on the spine, there is a number “49” indicating its
former incorporation in the Sparwenfeld donation to the University Library
at Uppsala. On the fore edge one may with difficulty discern another num-
ber, “16,” which remains from the manuscript’s stay in the library at El Es-
corial. The old library catalogs of El Escorial give further clues: in addition
to the placing as “olim Escorialensis A-VI-16,” yet another label, “olim Es-
corialensis -VI-19,” shows that the shelves were reorganized at some point
and that this affected our manuscript as well.2 That these two shelf-marks
should refer instead to two different manuscripts with the very same contents
is unlikely. No such duplicate manuscript has been reported as belonging to
El Escorial.
Watermarks
Apart from what the library catalogs tell us, we have only the evidence of the
codex itself, its material, its outer appearance, its texts and the notes that
have been added. There is no colophon in it, and we must thus find other
means to date the manuscript. One way is to compare the watermarks with
similar designs in dated collections.3 The basis for this is that the molds for
manufacturing paper were replaced regularly as they were worn out. Accu-
racy in dating watermarks is based on the matching of paper sheets produced
from the very same mold, and the odds are better if the patterns from both
molds (twins) are represented in the manuscript.4 At best, one may expect a
dating accuracy of ±4–5 years in relation to an identical match in the reper-
tory.5
2
In El Escorial there are several older library catalogs which mention the contents of what
was to become Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8: two of them, Esc. X.I.16 and X.I. 18, are in
Nicholas de la Torre’s hand. David Colville’s handwritten catalogs from the early 17th c.,
extant in Esc. K.I.18 and K.I.20, are the last to record Gr 8, since later cataloging work was
carried out after the fire in 1671, when our book had already disappeared from El Escorial.
3
Repertories of dated watermarks are, for example, the ones produced by BRIQUET 1968
(Br.), HARLFINGER & HARLFINGER 1974–80 (Ha.) and PICCARD 1961 (Pi.).
4
The work in the paper mill was organized so that molds were always used in pairs—while
one mold was emptied the other one was dipped into the vat and vice versa. This pair of
molds used to carry very similar but not quite identical wire figures, which is why we speak
of “twin watermarks.”
5
The estimate mentioned counts only for common-size paper, where the molds were normally
worn out in one or two years; molds for very large formats were probably not in everyday use,
and could thus last for many years. One must also keep in mind that a scribe could have had a
sheaf of paper stashed away for a while. A dating with the help of watermarks is thus more of
52
In the case of Gr 8 we are lucky to have such a match with a dated manu-
script, and this for a watermark which is present with both its twin appear-
ances in not only one but several codicological units of Gr 8 (Ha. Boeuf 51,
left and right, in Parisinus gr. 2938). The date in the colophon of the Paris
manuscript is 1481, 20 September, the scribe there being Antonios Damilas.
One might add that Ha. Boeuf 52 (Parisinus gr. 2097) is also very similar.
This watermark is attested in a manuscript from Kydonia/Crete, 15 August
1484; scribe Michael Souliardos. It has been suggested that watermarks be
used as a means to arrange manuscripts according to scriptoria or work-
shops. This may also help in identifying scribal hands. Identical paper forms
and watermarks may, in addition to palaeographical and other evidence in
the manuscripts, indicate a similar provenance when it comes to time of ori-
gin and workshop.6 This course of action could contribute to the reconstruc-
tion of cultural connections otherwise not easily detected. As we have little
to go on when it comes to establishing the exact geographical provenance of
Gr 8, it is an important piece of information that Antonios Damilas’ scribal
activity took place on Crete.7 He held the post of notary in Candia, the main
city of Crete (today’s Iraklio), and had connections also with the workshop
of Michael Apostoles.8 Dated manuscripts in Damilas’ hand range from 1466
to 1491.
Another watermark which appears in Gr 8, though only on a couple of
leaves, is similar to Ha. Balance 41. Normally one would need a larger pro-
portion of leaves carrying the same twin watermarks and not just stray ap-
pearances, in order for them to be significant for dating. But in this case it is
still of interest since the Codex Parisinus graecus 3045, in which the water-
mark has been identified, is copied by the same scribe who wrote most of the
texts in Gr 8, Theodoros; I will return to this Paris manuscript in the discus-
sion on him, below. If we could convey further connections between Theo-
doros and other scribes who have used the same kind of paper, or even who
have worked on the same manuscripts as Theodoros, it might be possible to
establish with more accuracy the milieu where Gr 8 saw its origin. For the
time being, this can be considered wishful thinking: there is just not enough
evidence to follow up on. But as more scribes are identified in codicologi-
an approximate “post-quem” indicator, helpful when used with prudence. On dating with the
help of watermarks, see further HARLFINGER 1980; VAN DER HORST 1989.
6
HARLFINGER & HARLFINGER 1971, 32. Cf. Ralph Hanna’s wholesome reminder that stem-
matic diagrams illustrate tangible historical processes; the groupings of manuscripts in a
stemma indicate lines of actual communication, of physical contact between book producers
and model manuscripts. Thus one may in the stemmata find evidence of material literary
communities (HANNA 1996, 10). What Hanna does with the help of texts is expandable to
codicological similarities: the advantage is that one may find links to these cultural networks
also when the scribes copied different works.
7
Repertorium I, 22.
8
On Michael Apostoles, see GEANAKOPLOS 1962, 73–110, and Repertorium I, 278; for infor-
mation on his workshop, see also WITTEK 1953.
53
cal/palaeographical research, and further treasures from fifteenth-century

paper mills are systematically investigated, there may arise opportunities to
pick up this clue later on. As for other watermarks in Gr 8, I will comment
on these in the descriptions of codicological units below.
Book block and binding

The original book block of Gr 8 encompasses 342 leaves, all Western paper
of different types and watermark impression, in 8o format. In connection
with the last binding, upper and lower endleaves were added to protect the
book block, in each place a binion from which one leaf has been pasted
down onto the inner surface of the cover (= iii + 342 + iii folios; 135 x 90
mm). The flyleaves carry watermarks, the identification of which still re-
mains: on the third upper flyleaf, f. iii, and the first lower flyleaf, f. i, we can
see the letter “B” and possibly a heart encircled by one large and one small
circle respectively. On ff. ii–iii there is an escutcheon watermark. These
kinds of watermarks, with letters and/or figurines encircled by two or three
circles on top of each other, seem to be quite common in Spanish seven-
teenth-century manuscripts.9
The volume is sewn on three leather thongs, its headbands being
oversewn with hemp cord. The edges are gilt, and the front edge is decorated
by means of a punched Eierstab. On the fore edge the letters may
with some difficulty be read, and also the number “16” (originating from the
Escorialensis shelf-mark, A-VI-16). The cover is made out of limp yellowish
vellum of a kind not uncommon for Spanish bookbindings.10 This is in sharp
contrast to the usually quite elaborate covers of Escorial manuscripts.11
Therefore it seems probable that the manuscript was rebound at some point
after its disappearance from El Escorial in 1671, the year of the great fire. I
am thus inclined to date the binding to the last quarter of the seventeenth
century, which would also be in accord with the type of watermarks that we
can see on the endleaves of the manuscript.12 On the outer edges of the cover
9
A number of parallels are provided by HEAWOOD 1950, especially among the figures desig-
nated “Circles,” Nos. 247–335, and “Coat of arms” with circles, Nos. 724–776. These patterns
may indicate that the paper was fabricated at mills in Genoa: “In Genoese papers made for
Spain, the watermarks most commonly met with are the coat of arms of Genoa and three
moons, known also as three O, as well as latin cross in an oval” (JAMES 1997, 53).
10
The information on Spanish vellum bindings was given to me orally, by Sten G. Lindberg.
11
“Der typische Escorial-Einband [...] ist gekennzeichnet durch mittel- bis dunkel-, bisweilen
auch rotbraunes Leder auf Pappe, seltener auf Holz, mit schlichtem, in Einzelheiten wenig
variierendem Blinddruck: ein oder zwei Filetenrahmen meist mit Blattstempeln in den Ecken;
in der Mitte der San Lorenzo-Rost, bei einem Teil der Einbände von einer Krone überragt,
umgeben von einem Rankenkranz; am vergoldeten Schnitt mitunter eine kleinere oder eine
grössere Krone eingraviert” (MORAUX 1976, 144f.).
12
This is also indicated by the fact that while codd. Ups. gr. 2 and 5, both olim Escorialenses,
have similar covers and watermarks on added blank folia, they are clearly of different date
54
are still the remains of two pairs of thin leather tying straps. There are no
decorations on the cover, other than the olim shelf-mark, 49, on the upper
end of the spine.
Foliation
In addition to the unnumbered protective leaves (iii + iii), Roman numerals
in pencil have been added to the pinakes, ff. I–III; the rest of the codex has a
foliation in Arabic numerals in the upper outer corner of recto pages, ff. 1–
336. This foliation in ink was made in El Escorial by the scribe Nicholas de
la Torre (v. infra), who also gives the corresponding folio number for each
entry in his pinakes. Some inconsistencies need to be mentioned: f. 12 is
followed by ff. 12a and 12b. On f. 6v a “6” and on f. 7r an “8” have been
added in the lower margin; on f. 12ar, 12av, and 12br the number “7” has
been added, and on f. 12bv we once again find a number “8” added.13 There
is one leaf between ff. 34 and 35 numbered 34a by a modern hand. Thus, the
total number of leaves is 348.
There are no traces of any original quire numbering (in Byzantium this
was the customary way of keeping the leaves in order). However, since the
book block has gone through a rather severe trimming at binding or rebind-
ing, we cannot rule out the possibility of quire numbers having been lost in
the process.
Scribes
Disregarding pen trials, notes, and other later additions, the hands of four
different scribes may be discerned in Gr 8. One of them is responsible for
99% of the writing in Gr 8, and since his hand turns up in every codicologi-
cal unit except the first (which was added to the codex at a later stage), it is
appropriate to describe it thoroughly here. The other scribes are briefly pre-
sented here, but I will deal with the characteristic features of their hands in
the codicological units where they come to the fore (U1, U4, and U15). The
scribes are introduced here in consecutive order as they appear in the manu-
script.
The scribe of the pinax on ff. I–II, has since long been identified as
# , alias Nicholas de la Torre.14 The ensuing two pages
and provenance. All six codices which Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld purchased in Spain have
matching vellum covers in the same design (Ups. graeci 2–3, 5–8).
13
This rather complex quire (Q3) is presented in more detail in the discussion of unit 2 (U2)
below.
14
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 34. For my presentation of Nicholas de la Torre, I rely mainly on
Gregorio de Andrés’ comprehensive biography from 1969. Andrés includes several illustra-
tions with Torre’s hand; see further Repertorium I, 319, and GRAUX & MARTIN 1891, plate
XVII, No. 59.
55
were inaccessible heretofore, the leaves being glued together, but it is now
clear that they carry an earlier draft by the same scribe. I may add that the
foliation and one or two headings seem to be Nicholas’ additions too (e.g. on
f. 200r). Nicholas de la Torre, was born on Crete—in Candia, Gregorio de
Andrés conjectures—around 1535–40, moved from Crete to Padua/Venice in
1559, where he came to work together with Andreas Darmarios, among oth-
ers. In 1564 Nicholas was commissioned by the bishop of Salamanca (and
later Segovia) Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva to copy some Greek books for
him, books which belonged to different Spanish humanists, one of them
Diego Hurtado de Mendoza. Accepting the assignment Nicholas moved to
Segovia, where he also met Ana Sanchez who became his wife. During the
years that followed he moved around finding patrons now in Paris, now in
Venice, and then eventually found his way back to Spain, where in 1569 he
had the position as university scribe in Salamanca.
In these years Philip II spared no efforts in founding and furnishing his li-
brary in El Escorial with rare books collected from all over Europe. He soon
realized that he would need a skilful Greek calligrapher who could create
copies of important works and transcribe the illegible or defective ones into
more usable books. In addition, the scribe must be well versed in Greek lit-
erature, to be able to compose indices to all the Escorial manuscripts. The
choice fell on Nicholas de la Torre who took up his new post as "#>

$<}, or royal secretary, in March 1573. As for his work on the indi-
ces and catalogs in El Escorial, we will come back to this in the discussion
of codicological unit 1, below.
Apart from the pinakes that were added at El Escorial, there is one scribe,
who dominates all other units of Gr 8. Sofía Torallas Tovar proposed that his
script looks very much like Nicholas Sagundino’s (Repertorium I, 316).15 I
am not inclined to agree, considering the differences in both the details and
the overall appearance. But in addition Torallas Tovar puts forward another
hand for comparison, of one “Theodoros,” whom we can find in Reperto-
rium II, 176. To my mind, we have ample reason to believe that this Theo-
doros is the actual scribe of all but a few pages of Gr 8. I have favorably
compared the handwriting in Gr 8 with a microfilm copy of Codex Parisinus
graecus 3045, which is where we meet with the scribe Theodoros’ own
colophon. On f. 172r it reads:
+ @
# = ^ "$"# @ $% (
)
_ > ^ = ... @

On the second line of the colophon the ink is somewhat smeared; thence the
loss of the second segment of Theodoros’ name. A name which would fit
with the short lacuna might be “$,” i.e., Theodoros from Kyzikos, a
15
TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 225.
56
city on the southern side of the Sea of Marmara, but this remains an assump-
tion until we meet with further evidence.16 With a place-name in the genitive,
one would perhaps also expect a title of office here, as in “bishop of (Kyzi-
kos).” Another possibility would be to surmise Theodoros’ father’s name
here; a name that would fit the lacuna would, for instance, be Kyrikos
( % $ – Theodoros, son of K.). The Anno Mundi 6996 above
equals 1488 CE. Another date, 1486 CE, is given on f. 5r in the Paris manu-
script:
@
(
) @ $
Apparently the Paris manuscript is also a composite one, worked out over
time. It contains on ff. 1–3 (written in another hand than Theodoros’) what is
said to be letters by Zonaras, but are actually the collected }#, or sur-
vey of chapters, of the work @ $ X
Y * Y [#* by Michael
Glykas.17 F. 4 is blank, and the date on the following leaf was added by
Theodoros. Then, anew, on f. 6 Theodoros has started out with the full text
of Michael Glykas’ work (though still going under the name of Zonaras).
The text ends on f. 172r, where it is followed by the aforementioned colo-
phon with Theodoros’ name in it. Theodoros is the scribe responsible also
for ff. 173r–192r, this time presenting a mathematical treatise.
One more manuscript is supposed to be in Theodoros’ handwriting, the
Sinaiticus Graecus 1677 from the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Si-
16
Marie Vogel’s and Victor Gardthausen’s note on this scribe is totally misleading: they seem
to have confused this fifteenth-century scribe—who copied Par. 3045—with Theodoros
Skoutariotes who was metropolitan of Kyzikos in the 1270s (VOGEL&GARDTHAUSEN 1909,
138, n. 8). Also Karl Krumbacher has written oddly about a Theodoros, bishop of Kyzikos,
and his contribution to Cod. Marc. gr. 407 and to Cod. Athous 3758, as if this person might be
another than the Skoutariotes who once owned the Cod. Marc. 407 (KRUMBACHER 1897,
390). As August Heisenberg claimed that the author of the so-called Synopsis Sathas in the
Marcianus manuscript would be Theodoros Skoutariotes himself, Herbert Hunger concluded
that “<h>iemit fällt auch die von Krumbacher (390) behandelte Chronik eines ‘Theodoros,
Bischofs von Kyzikos’ weg, da der Cod. Athous 3758 die Synopsis Sathas enthält” (HUNGER
1978, I 477; cf. HEISENBERG 1901, 5–16). Though Alexander Kazhdan has questioned this
attribution (ODB, s.v. Skoutariotes), Ruth Macrides seems to keep to the hypothesis (2003,
64, n. 11, and 69f.). However we choose to solve the question of authorship of the Synopsis
Sathas, it is still imperative that we sort out Theodoros, the fifteenth-century scribe of the
manuscripts Gr 8, Par. 3045, and Sinait. 1677, from these discussions.
There is also another person known under the name “Theodoros of Kyzikos,” who was bishop
there in the 10th c. and is known as an epistolographer (ODB, s.v. Theodore of Kyzikos): of
course, he is to be kept out of this discussion just as adamantly.
17
This work is either referred to as a collection of didactic letters from Michael Glykas to
various addressees within clergy and government, or as a theological treatise, “95 Lyseis zu
Aporien der Hl. Schrift,” as Hunger puts it (HUNGER 1978, I 235). In Sophronios Eustratiades’
edition the “ #< }#
^ # ” are reproduced in vol. 1, pp. –".
57
nai.18 This codex contains Aristotle’s Rhetoric (ff. 1–74v) with concomitant
commentaries (ff. 79r–244r Anonymi Comm. in Rhet.; ff. 244r–247v Fragm.
Comm. in Rhet.; ff. 250r–283r Stephani Comm. in Rhet.).19 As I have not
examined this manuscript myself, I rely on Diether R. Reinsch’s inspection
of it for the Aristotle Archive in Berlin. He notes that some corrections and
lemmata have been added by another, contemporary hand (ff. I, IIrv, 75–78v,
248–249v, 283v–305, I–II.20 So far, only one more scribe has been identified
in manuscripts which, according to the stemma, belong to the same family as
Sinaiticus 1677: Michael Souliardos copied the Rhetorica of Vaticanus
Graecus 1326.21 In trying to reconstruct a cultural network around Theo-
doros, this might be another clue to which persons may have belonged there.
As I mentioned above, the scribe Michael Souliardos also turns up in the
discussion of watermarks used by Theodoros. Possibly one could get further
illumination on scribal networks through this kind of investigation, compar-
ing the transmission of related texts with facts from the physical text carriers,
such as watermarks in the manuscripts, identified scribes, contemporary
owners, et cetera. To follow up on this is not within the limits of the present
study, but I believe it could be a rewarding path to take. That Michael Sou-
liardos worked in Crete22 is not uninteresting in this connection, if we also
consider that Theodoros’ manuscript ended up in the Monastery of St. Cath-
erine in Sinai: this monastery had a daughter monastery with the same name
in Crete (in Candia/Iraklio), and the contacts between the two communities
were close.23 The monastery school of St. Catherine’s in Candia was for a
long time the leading Greek educational center on the island.24 This was the
fertile soil where many Cretan scribes started out and were introduced to
Greek literary tradition.
The third scribe of Gr 8, “co-scribe A,” has only contributed a few pages,
ff. 104r, 107r, 109r and 112r (in addition to these also the headline of f. 88r
and line 6 on f. 106v). It has been proposed that these leaves too were copied
by Theodoros and that he was only trying out another style, varying his usual
18
Dieter Harlfinger mentions the scribe Theodoros Ky...kos as responsible for the Sinaiticus
1677 in his survey of “Neuidentifizierte Kopisten griechischer Aristoteles-Handschriften der
Renaissance” (HARLFINGER 1971, 413).
19
See further KASSEL 1971, 13 and 56.
20
I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Diether R. Reinsch, who kindly sent me his codicological notes on
this manuscript.
21
KASSEL 1971, 14; stemma on p. 61.
22
To reconstruct precisely the whereabouts of Michael Souliardos is difficult, but he seems to
have spent the 1470s and 80s mainly in Crete and other parts of Venetian-dominated Greece
(Kydonia/Chania, Methone and Nauplion). In the 1490s, he transferred his activities to Italy
(cf. Repertorium I 286 and II 392).
23
One may compare with what happened to the Greek books which were donated by the
scribe Maximos Margounios to the Monastery of St. Catherine of Candia in Crete: “Of the
manuscripts Margounios bequeathed to the monks of Crete, five to seven [...] got to the parent
monastery of Mt. Sinai” (GEANAKOPLOS 1968, 78).
24
GEANAKOPLOS 1962, 46.
58
Criteria for discerning codicological units
way of writing.25 This is unlikely, I think: the differences in letter forms and
ligatures between Theodoros’ hand and the one responsible for the afore-
mentioned pages are considerable and stable.26 It is more plausible that
Theodoros had a colleague, or perhaps an apprentice, with whom he worked
at times. This hypothesis is corroborated by the Paris manuscript, Parisinus
graecus 3045, where this same scribe has copied not only ff. 1–3, as I men-
tioned earlier, but also everything from f. 71r, line 5, to f. 84v: once more he
has obviously seconded Theodoros inside the middle of a text.
The fourth scribe of Gr 8, “co-scribe B,” writes in Latin only. We find his
contribution in the bilingual part of the codex, ff. 308–323. The Latin text is
accompanied by an interlinear Greek translation in Theodoros’ hand, but I
hesitate to think Theodoros capable of writing Latin in such a fine Italian
humanist hand; I am more inclined to suppose that an indigenous or at least
experienced Latin scribe wrote those texts.27

In the previous chapter I cited Gumbert’s definition of a codicological unit
as “a discrete number of quires, worked in a single operation and containing
a complete text or set of texts” (see p. 44, n. 64). At times there are obvious
clues given in a manuscript which inform us that a unit has come to an end:
the scribe may have inserted a subscription or a date as to when the particu-
lar unit (or even the whole book) was finished. It is vital that the codicologist
consider this when, for example, it comes to referring a date to a composite
manuscript. If further units follow, there are no guarantees that the subse-
quent units are from the same time or place. Usually, though, we have to rely
on other, less conclusive, criteria than a scribal colophon. Below I have
listed such criteria with the help of which we may find out where a codi-
cological unit begins or ends. The reason why “dating or subscription at the
end of a text” is not put up as a criterion among the others is that I consider
this superior to the rest of the list. Information of that quality would be a
clear-cut end note which we need not weigh in relation to other traits. In part
the listed criteria correspond with similar suggestions from Pamela Robin-
son, J. P. Gumbert, and Erik Kwakkel.28 One or two are my own additions or
25
Nigel Wilson, viva voce, who on his visit to Uppsala in 1998 briefly inspected the manu-
script.
26
See further the discussion of codicological unit 4, below.
27
As the Latin hand is present only in codicological unit 15 (U15) in Gr 8, I deal with the
specifics of it in connection with the presentation of U15, below.
28
ROBINSON 1980, 47f.: features mentioned correspond to the criteria A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I,
K, and M. In addition she brings up the catchword as a criterion, if it runs only within the
“booklet” and there is none on the verso of last quire. As Byzantine manuscripts do not usu-
ally carry catchwords, I omit this criterion. GUMBERT 1989, 6–7: defines a caesura as a quire
boundary “qui est en même temps une limite de texte, de main et/ou de quelque autre aspect
59
specifications. I believe that by formalizing the procedure, we will have a

viable method of investigation, which—with due adjustments for different
research materials—other codicologists and manuscript researchers may
benefit from using.
The criteria are listed according to where in the unit they are normally ob-
served:
A and B apply to both first recto and last verso of units.
C applies chiefly to the end of a unit, but may also come into question at the
beginning of a unit (though for other reasons).
D – G apply to the end of a unit.
H – O apply to the ensuing unit in relation to the preceding one.
A quire boundary and text boundary coincide

B external damage: outer leaves soiled or worn
C different quire construction
D leaf/leaves cut out at the end of a quire
E script compressed or distended to make the text fit
F space left open after the text end
G further text(s) added on an originally blank space at quire end
H different dimensions of the leaves (but: often cropped to uniform size
by binding)
I different set of quire signatures (not relevant in Gr 8)
J different paper/watermark
K different handwriting
L different mise-en-page (ruling, number of lines,…)
codicologique” and—transposed into the terms of the criterion list—exemplifies this with A,
F, I, K, L, and also another trait: different language). GUMBERT 1995, 61: mentions, in addi-
tion to “a change in text,” the following traits: “for instance a change in hand, in watermark,
in ruling practice, in quire signatures, in style of decoration, in number of lines”, i.e. A, I, J,
K, L, M. Further down, p. 63, he also draws attention to “short and imperfect” quires and
blank pages, i.e. C and D, and also to a dating at the end of a text. KWAKKEL 2002,13f.: the
main indicator of a production unit is said to be the catchword, or rather, the lack of one (but
this criterion is more relevant for those working with manuscripts outside the Byzantine tradi-
tion). Criteria corresponding to C, K, and L are also brought forward by Kwakkel.
60
M different style of decoration

N scribal (prayer) formula added in upper margin of first recto
O change in textual contents, genre affinity
From the definition of a codicological unit, it follows that A is a necessary

criterion, although there are instances where this has to be modified: for
example when the scribe broke off without finishing his or her text, or when
the quire has been interfered with afterwards.29
Criterion B is a possible help. Not only the condition of the outer leaves is
important, but also the distinct traces of water damage, mildew, scorching,
which can be seen throughout a limited part of the book but not in the
neighboring quires.
The criteria C – G are often helpful in establishing where the codico-
logical units begin and end, as are H – I if the traces have not been trimmed
away at later binding.
For J – N one has to bear in mind that these changes, or instances, may
appear also within codicological units and some even within quires. It is the
accretion of criteria which makes the unit delimitation plausible, and always
with criterion A present. As with H – I, traces from criterion N may also
have disappeared through trimming of the leaves.
Finally, O: This criterion is not purely codicological, since it has to do
with the textual contents of the book. Even if it is not as decisive as some of
the aforementioned, I believe it can still defend its place if combined with
the others. It is difficult to decide on textual affinity now, centuries later,
when we do not even know why someone decided to gather the particular
texts present in a miscellany. But, if the book in general seems sensibly or-
ganized and there is a definite change in type of texts, this might be worth
looking into.
To sum up, by gathering information on how the quires and leaves of a
book have been produced, adjusted, filled with texts, damaged (and in some
cases even lost), we are able to outline the extension and scope of the codi-
cological units, i.e., the essential building blocks or modules of the book.
The criteria listed above are meant as a help in this work process. It is never
enough just to tick the demarcation traits off from a list; they must be
weighed and assessed in an open but slightly skeptical spirit, since the body
of evidence does not always point unanimously in one direction. In uncertain
situations it is often wiser to divide assumed units rather than to bring them
together. That way we are not tempted to draw conclusions from one part to
29
In these instances—exceptions to the rule— Gumbert refers to the units as being defective
or extended. See further GUMBERT 2004, 30–33.
61
another; instead we are forced to give attention to each part on its own
terms.30
Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax
Quires: Q1, a binion from which the first leaf has been cut out. Roman
numerals in pencil for ff. I–III.
Paper: Western paper of good quality, present solely in this unit; no wa-
termark visible.
Justification: Irregular, leaving little marginal space; writing area ca. 120
x 75 mm; 19 lines per page on f. Ir–v, 14 lines on f. IIr, 21 lines on f. IIv, 5
lines on f. IIIr.
Scribe: Nicholas de la Torre.
Texts: Nos. 1–2. Pinakes, i.e. tables of contents, for the whole book.
Decoration: Entries in black ink with plain red initials. Small black wisps
with a dot mark the end of some items, a larger one of the same design in red
on f. IIr. Also on f. IIr a floriate ornament in red.
Condition: From the upper margin of f. I a thin strip of paper has been
cut away. The last two leaves of the binion, which used to be glued together,
have been separated; residues of glue remain.
Unit demarcation traits: A – quire boundary and text boundary coincide
both initially and at the end of the unit; C – the number of leaves in the quire
(binion) differs from the more common quaternion, which, as we will see
from the other units, dominates the rest of the manuscript.
Nicholas de la Torre’s contribution to Gr 8

The first unit of Gr 8 is a single binion which was added to the book after its
arrival at El Escorial in 1576. Nicholas de la Torre initiated his cataloging
work at the library in the very same year, and from the fact that our codex is
mentioned already in Torre’s first catalog one may assume that the pinakes
were added within a year or so.31 As Gregorio de Andrés shows in his pres-
entation of the extant correspondence between Nicholas and his superiors,
this task of producing indices to all the manuscripts was not Nicholas de la
Torre’s favorite choice.32 He had attained permission from the king to stay in
Segovia for a year on account of his wife’s infirmity, and was continuously
working at distance, copying the works that were sent to him from El Esco-
30
An example of a problematic unit boundary is discussed in unit 11, below.
31
Cf. ANDRÉS 1968, 38 (No. 66). The first catalog, X. I. 17, was produced by Torre in 1577.
The other two, X. I. 16 and X. I. 18, are from 1588 and 1600 (ANDRÉS 1968, 9).
32
See ANDRÉS 1969, 53–59 and 103–106.
62
rial. But during his absense the terms were changed. When he returned to the
library in early 1576 he found himself no longer receiving 1½ real for each
sheet (pliego), as agreed: now he was down to 1 real per sheet. What is
worse, since his immediate superior Antonio Gracián had assigned him to
create the indices, it now took him more than a day to finish just one sheet,
since he had to read through the whole volumes before excerpting the au-
thors and titles for each of them. As his usual rate was four sheet a day, he
was used to making six reales a day, so the new work duty was obviously an
economic drawback.
Finally a solution to the practical matters was found, and Nicholas de la
Torre spent much of the year 1576 on cataloging duties for the library. One
of the items in the library was the manuscript that we are now engrossed in,
Gr 8, and as this was devoid of many of its headlines while containing a
multitude of texts, it must have been one of Nicholas’ less agreeable assign-
ments to catalog it. First he had to identify its contents in detail and prepare
the pinax. We will presently turn to the contents of the pinax in Gr 8, but
first a couple of comments on the physical appearance of the quire. There is
no way to tell if something has gone missing on the leaf which was cut out at
the front of the binion. If it was blank, the scribe may have cut it out himself,
using it for other purposes. Or it may still have been part of the manuscript,
holding some information which betrayed its being the property of El Esco-
rial. In that case it is reasonable to suppose that the leaf was removed at the
same time as the small paper strip in the upper margin of f. Ir, because that is
the place where El Escorial library shelf-marks generally are inscribed. The
excised strip bears witness to an illegal book transaction somewhere along
the line.33
As appears from the reproduction of the first page of Nicholas’ pinax, the
script slopes to the right. His hand can be described as a bit turgid with the
size of letters varying and the accents prolonged. Conspicuous traits are, for
example, the “superscript” epsilon in , $, ¡
\, etc; the chi put at an
upright angle, as in
_# on f. Ir; and the $-ligature. Iota subscriptum
is indicated.34
33
Of the codices Escorialenses purchased by Sparwenfeld at least one, Codex Ups. gr. 2, still
contains this kind of information on the first folio (at the top of f. 1r one can read II 20, i.e.
the former El Escorial shelf-mark). Consequently, the incision was probably made not by
Sparwenfeld himself but before his purchase; perhaps the vendor was covering up a prior
theft.
34
The style of Nicholas de la Torre’s hand was obviously appreciated in his time, considering
the distinguished orders he received from patrons in more than one country. Gregorio de
Andrés shares the opinion: “Uno de los más diestros calígrafos cretenses de mediados del
siglo XVI, comparable por su bella escritura con Angel Vergecio (del cual vino el dicho
popular en Francia de «escribir como un angel»), fue Nicolás Turrianos, o de la Torre, una de
las más elegantes plumas del Renacimiento” (ANDRÉS 1969, 14).
63
F. Ir (90 % of original size). Scribe: Nicholas de la Torre.
The selection of entries for the pinax

Not all of the texts in Gr 8 are put as separate items in the pinax. Here I will
briefly discuss the entries in relation to the information which Theodoros
gave in connection with the texts themselves, and also touch upon possible
reasons for Nicholas de la Torre’s selection of items. The motive for this
kind of examination is that such details might reveal what parts of a book
were considered interesting at a certain time. It could render insights into
how different texts were valued, and thus contribute to a “conceptual his-
64
tory” of Byzantine literature/books.35 For an overview, I have put the new

pinax and the old one side by side in the table, below.36 It may also be profit-
able to compare this with the “Codicological table” in Appendix 2, where all
the texts in Gr 8 are listed and numbered in consecutive order. As for the
texts themselves, a more exhaustive discussion will follow in Chapter 4.
Text NEW PINAX, ff. Ir–IIr. Fol. OLD PINAX, ff. IIv and
No. Leaf numbers are given only in the new subsequent (unnumbered)
pinax Ì page
(f. Ir)

(f. IIv) <>

3 ¢
^ £ %+
#¤ > ¥$, 1. ¢
^ £ %+
<%
@ .
¥¤
#¬,
#.
"$"# ¦ @ @ ¥$, +
_ <
$¨ $ +
^

}$
¥_#
, ¡
\ +

_#
, ©
_ }

=
:~
5 ¥
#< > . 88. ¥
.
£# ~ <$
:~
7 # $
^ <#
98. $# .
<
> \< :~
8
# "#\% |
\ 99. |
\ "# $
¡
\%. ¡
\% @
#$.
11 £# <$

@

} 104.
% :~
16 <$
^
<^ ®_¯. 128. < ~
u<.
20 °¤#
^ ²
% %$ @
³ 138. °¤# ~ ²
.
¬
´ *#
%

# %.
21 µ |
$ #
$ ¶#%
$% 147. µ ~ |
.
23 %<$
^
^
152. < ~
.
24–25 (f. Iv) ^
^ ¡
\% @
#$ 163.
26 #
^ ^ @
#¤ > 167. # ~ .
|
> ##
.
27 µ"$ #\
(@
#¤ expunxit) > 173. µ".
## <.
28– ²
#<
¢%, 186. ²
.
29 <, ·##
.
30–31 ° }\ < ¡
\%. 191. ° ~ }\.
42 ¸
$ } "_ . 208. ¸
$ }.
42
#¤ > ¥%
> µ_ . ¹
217.
#¤ > ¥%
>
35
It would also be beneficial to compare this material with some of the pinakes which Nicho-
las de la Torre has added to other El Escorial manuscripts, thus evaluating the scribe’s idio-
syncrasies on a larger scale. But this goes beyond the scope of my thesis.
36
Normal abbreviations in the text have been resolved without comment and names are repre-
sented with initial capital letters, for the sake of readability.
65
+ @
#¤
\_

¯ µ_ .
º
¯¨ ¼ + <
> ¾ $ ,
>
> ¿
, ¼ + ,
>
"#
,
> <,

¡¯, ·##
.
44 ¢ #< 232. ¢ #<.
45 # > À" \_

232. # > À" \_

>
^ <# %

$.

>
^
<# %

$.
48 (f. IIr) }
’ #}"
. 238. }.
°_¤# ~ ²%
.
50 µ >
’ #}"
. 247. µ :~
51 °_¤#
^ ²%

#$
253. (next page)
$_ @
¯
|= _
%
¬
♣
$_ @
³ _
´
¬ # % |= :~
# % |= :~
53 £ ®_¯ , ·##
. 254. £ ®_¯.
µ\% "# .
62 £
_
# , 281. £
_ $
·##
.
# .
67– # $
^ <# ¡
\% 286.
70 @
#$.
℘:~
73 µ\
"#\% @
# :~ 302.
71 <$ $
Á^ Â ^37 297.
71 <$ ¡
\ ¥%¬ 298.
72 }
^ < >
> 299.
#<=\
#
¤
$ :
The first item of Nicholas’ pinax, Text 3 Stephanites and Ichnelates, gets a
six-line description, whereas most items are described in just a few words.
One could perhaps suspect that this indicates a special interest in this first
piece on Nicholas’ part. But considering that the Stephanites text never had
its rubricated headline filled in (f. 1), the explanation is probably that Nicho-
las simply chose to copy the first paragraph of the text more or less as it
stands.
Nicholas de la Torre usually puts the author’s name first even if the head-
line of the text has the words in another order, e.g. Text 5 (Isocrates Oration
1), where />
]
=
< ^ >"
is given on f. 88r. The attribu-
tion of Text 7 (Gregory of Nazianzos Ep. 114) to Basil the Great will be
discussed in Chapter 4: suffice it here to notice that Nicholas just copies the
headline as Theodoros has it on f. 98v. The Hippocrates letters and the
Anacharsis ones (Texts 8–9) are treated as one single item in the pinax.
37
The last three items (equaling Texts 71–72) were written in a different, brownish ink, which
has dissolved a bit and discolored the paper. The same goes for the correction of @
#¤
into #\
, above (Text 27).
66
From unit 4 the only text selected for the pinax is Text 11, Paul of Aegina’s
Medical Compendium. On the whole it seems that Nicholas tends to ignore
the anonymous texts, though not always, as will be seen as we proceed
through his pinax. Three texts from unit 5 turn up in the pinax: Texts 16
(Gregory Thaumatourgos), 20 (Manuel Christonymos), and 21 (Leonardo
Bruni). These happen to be the three which have the largest floriate initials
in the unit.
Plethon’s On Virtues (Text 23) is put as an item of its own. Then Nicholas
takes Plethon’s treatise Reply to Scholarios, Text 24, and bundles it together
with Bessarion’s letters to Plethon’s sons, to Michael Apostoles, and to An-
dronikos Kallistos, Text 25. That the treatise is taken for a letter here is un-
derstandable: in Gr 8 the headline says %<$
^
^ >
<
> _# but only the rhetorical “preface” of this treatise is
included. Usually the sender of a letter is put in the nominative while the
author of a text is in the genitive, something which Nicholas obviously did
not take notice of or think important. After Bessarion’s letters the one from
Nicholas Sagundino to Andronikos Kallistos stands as an item of its own
(Text 26).
Text 27, Libanios’ Declamation 26, was put up as a letter at first, but the
scribe then changed @
#¬ to #\
. The Chrysostom item (Text 28)
ends with the phrase ·##
, which ought to point to the otherwise
unknown text introduced with
^
^ by Theodoros (f. 189v), inc.
¤ $ (Text 29).

Three items in a row Nicholas defined as works by Mark Eugenikos
(while Theodoros calls him “~ Ã< ° ~ } $%,” scil. @$,
Nicholas simply calls him “° `} ” [sic]). The first and third are
texts of his (30 Thoughts and 41 On the filioque doctrine); the middle one,
which in the manuscript lacks the rubricated title and author indication,
Nicholas put up as “
^
^
#
$%,” but the text is actually a work
by Plethon (40 Plethon Reply to the Treatise in Support of the Latin Doc-
trine). In-between the Mark Eugenikos’ Thoughts and Text 40 by Plethon,
no less than seven shorter texts (and a small page filler) are passed over in
silence.
Another text which in Gr 8 lacks its headline and author is taken up by
Nicholas de la Torre as an anonymous item: _
" "=#
" `){"
(Text 42). This is actually a selection of passages from John Tzetzes’ Chili-
ades or Book of Histories, written in fifteen-syllable verse. But the text was
apparently not familiar enough to be identified by Nicholas. The short his-
torical or mythical episodes in verse in the Chiliades function as a commen-
tary to Tzetzes’ own collection of letters addressed to friends and contempo-
raries as well as to fictitious persons. One such letter, to John Lachanas, is
transmitted in Gr 8 and was itemized separately in the pinax. Nicholas gives
a detailed account of its contents (taken from Theodoros’ text, f. 217r):
("
| < ]= < /)}. ~ "
| )" "
67
@ *
"*' $ < " ", < ""<
{,
"{, < `
">, < ">, + "=. This time there
was no need for a longer description due to the work having no title (cf. Text
3 Stephanites, above). So perhaps this matter actually interested Nicholas; at
least he must have thought it worthwhile to be able to find this rhetorical
exposition.
That Nicholas chose to mention the Decalogue (Text 44) is more peculiar.
One would think that the Ten Commandments should be well known enough
to function rather as a page filler. Why pick up this text and not the Prayer to
the Theotokos, for example (Text 33)? The fact that the preceding eight
leaves were left without a rubricated title and therefore remained unidenti-
fied by Nicholas (they contain twenty letters by Theophylact Simokates,
Text 43) may have come into play here. One can easily imagine how Nicho-
las after 16 pages finally finds something he recognizes, and thus, puts that
item in the pinax.
The list of kings (Text 45) also lacks its headline. Wishing to have this
item in his pinax, the scribe thus had to make up his own characterization:
`"{" X< `$ )"
<
=

.
The florilegium on ff. 238–247 (Text 48) was considered interesting
enough to put in the pinax, and here as well Nicholas had to supply the text
with a title: "
# ’ X#=`
. This corresponds with the mean-
ing but not the wording in the upper margin of f. 238, where a reader has
added _¤
\#
#}"

} #<.38 This text is
followed by another anonymous item, a lexicon (Text 50), which Nicholas
saw fit to include in his survey.
Text 51, an elegy on the city of Athens by Michael Choniates, )
" +
X)! X"
" > , is the only one that Nicholas
equips with a floriate decoration: was it the highlight for him perhaps?
On f. 254 yet an anonymous text begins (Text 53). However, Theodoros
did spare a line for a rubricated title, so perhaps he knew more about it than
we do. Nicholas chose to describe it as %+ ?)* X
, + "=.
After having passed over 24 leaves in silence—despite the fact that one of
the texts covers as much as 33 pages (56 Theodoret Cure of the Pagan
Maladies)—he then includes the listings of patriarchates, metropolises, etc.
(Text 62).
At first Nicholas de la Torre appears to have planned to end the pinax
with the letters by Basil et al. (Texts 67–70). A rubricated wreath in the mid-
dle of the page (looking like a larger elaboration of the small wisp we can
see at the end of some lines on f. I) now seems mistakenly put there, with
another few text lines crowded around it. The subsequently added item,
/

`"
"=", now surrounds and encrouches on the
decoration; this text (Text 73) begins on f. 302. And then, as an afterthought,
38
I.e.: _¤
¤ \#
’ #}"
¨
}$% Á #<.
68
Nicholas refers us to the two excerpts from Josephus, and to Nikephoros

Gregoras’ letter to the Grand Logothete Metochites, these three texts actually
preceding the one attributed to Leo (Texts 71–72). That this was done in a
second relay is indicated by the difference in ink. The dye of the four last
lines has dissolved and spread into the paper, and due to the acidity of the
ink it has eaten away the second letter of the word #
¬.
Which texts in Gr 8 are overlooked by Nicholas de la Torre? Shorter
“page fillers” are ignored, as are later additions (like the document on f. 87
and the continuation of Text 65 in the margin of f. 283v). Most of the
anonymous texts—both shorter and longer—are omitted, but in cases where
he can easily deduct the contents from the texts themselves even anonymous
ones get represented (Texts 42 histories, 45 kings, 48 florilegium; 50 lexi-
con; Text 53 on the soul; Text 62 patriarchates). Omitted completely are the
bilingual texts in unit 15 (Texts 76–81), the mathematical texts in unit 16
(Texts 84 and 86), as well as the truncated Aesop-text at the end of the book
(Text 88).
The discarded pinax on f. IIv

If we take the old and discarded pinax as a point of departure, the author-
based strategy becomes obvious. In this first step Nicholas de la Torre only
wrote down the author for each item, and the few anonymous entries, like
Stephanites and Ichnelates, are described in just a few words. Starting on the
new pinax Nicholas expanded the entries to author + title (and/or short de-
scription).
That Nicholas chose to cancel and glue together the old pinax can be ex-
plained on account of one mistake being added to another. The first mishap
was the text by Paul of Aegina (Text 11) which was not put in proper order
(in my numbering of the texts Nicholas’ items come in the sequence 2–5–
11–7). The next faux pas was Michael Choniates’ poem (Text 51), which
was first put in at the bottom of f. IIv. Then the lexicon (Text 50) follows as
first item on the recto page. After this entry Nicholas unfortunately added the
title of Michael Choniates’ work, )
" + X)! X"
" >
, i.e., he had now recorded the same item (Text 51) twice. Eventually
he put the list of patriarchates (Text 62) after the text attributed to Leo VI
(Text 73). This was the point of no return; he had to start anew, giving the
book an introduction without these flaws. For the sake of clearness: placing
the old (original) pinax at the end of the binion was logical. Preferably you
put the table of contents as close as possible to the block of texts to which it
belongs. This also made it reasonable for Nicholas de la Torre to glue these
leaves together, since that way the new and valid pinax got placed right be-
fore the rest of the texts.
69
Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87
Quires: Q2: [1–6] ternion. Q3: [7–12, 12a–12b] 1 ternion + 2 leaves

which seem to be glued together at the spine and attached to the ternion. The
original place for ff. 12a and 12b was in-between what is now numbered
folios 6 and 7; by restoration or rebinding the insertion mistakenly ended up
at the end of Q3. Q4–11: [13–75] 8 quaternions (f. 34 numbered twice).
Q12: [76–83] quaternion. Q13: [84–87] binion.
Paper: Western paper of good quality. Q2–11 have the twin watermarks
depicting an oxhead with a crown, identical to Ha. Boeuf 51, left and right,
(Parisinus gr. 2938, dated 1481, 20. Sept.; scribe Antonios Damilas). In Q12
there are no visible watermarks but the somewhat coarser paper quality and
wire line pattern correspond with the next quire. In Q13 we see a balance,
similar to Ha. Balance 41 (Parisinus gr. 3045, dated 1488, 24. Jan.; the
scribe is Theodoros, i.e. the very same scribe as in Gr 8).
Justification: 103 x 65 mm, 18 lines per page (ff. 1–63); 107 x 65 mm,
19 lines (ff. 64–75); 103 x 70/75 mm, 19–20 lines (ff. 76–78); 107 x 70/75
mm, 20–22 lines (ff. 79–83); 115 x 70/75 mm, 22–23 lines (ff. 84–86).
Scribe: main scribe, i.e. Theodoros, except for later inserted initials and
the last leaf which Theodoros left blank. Good black ink used for ff. 1–75.
Brownish ink on ff. 76–86. On f. 87 a subsequent owner of the book has
added a private document: the same hand is discernable also elsewhere in
Gr 8, for example in the marginal notes on f. 283v.
Texts: Nos. 3–4. Stephanites and Ichnelates (ff. 1–86); a document in-
scribed by a somewhat later hand on a previously blank leaf (f. 87).
Decoration: The page layout shows that Theodoros reserved a two-line
space for insertion of a rubricated title and perhaps a headpiece on the first
page (not fulfilled).39 Spaces for larger initials in red—some of them set out
in the margin, some within the text area—were also left void (or, at times,
indicated by the scribe by putting only the spiritus and accent there in the
usual black ink and leaving the rest of the initial to be filled in with red ink,
e.g. f. 9v, 12bv), but have later awkwardly, and occasionally wrongly, been
filled in with a pale smeary red. On f. 13v an initial omicron, 3 lines in
height, is ornamented in brownish-black and pale red with unfilled, pointed
palmettes coarsely executed by what seems to be an untrained hand.
Condition: The first two quires are in worse shape than the rest of the
unit when it comes to damp and mildew. The first few leaves are also
scorched but legibility is not affected. On f. 75v the surface is soiled, and the
damp stains which are fairly consistent in the leaves up to f. 75, look differ-
39
Cf. the appearance of the title with a band-shaped headpiece on the first page of U5 (f. 128)
and a similar solution in U4 (f. 104). In U3 there is only a one-line title in red and a large
ornamented initial (f. 88). In U6, the scribe uses two lines for the rubricated title but decorates
it with flowers in the upper margin and at the end of line 2.
70
ent in the next quires. At the end of U2—most prominently in the last binion
where the writing area is extended—the trimming of the leaves has reached
into the writing area and cut off part of the uppermost text line.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – a new text is initi-
ated on first recto; B – the first few leaves are very worn and darkened; J –
different paper; K – different scribe; L – different mise-en-page; M – differ-
ent style of decoration; O – change in textual contents (obviously, since U1
is a table of contents for the whole book).
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – main text ends on
the penultimate leaf of U2; B – last verso is darker, more soiled and worn
than the preceding leaves; C – last quire is a binion; E – the script is ele-
gantly compressed towards the end of the Stephanites text, the scribe slowly
enlarging the writing area one line at a time over several folios so as not to
make the change show; F – last leaf was originally left blank; G – on the
formerly blank leaf at the end a new text has been added some 50 years later,
in the form of a personal document including a blessing and some pen trials.
Anomalies in the quire construction

In Gr 8, as in the great majority of Byzantine manuscripts, the predominant
quire type is the quaternion, composed out of four double-leaves (that is,
amounting to 8 folios or 16 pages). This pattern is altered in two places in
U2: at the beginning (Q2–3) and in the last quire (Q13), and we will address
these instances one at a time. My approach to these irregularities in the
manuscript has been the codicologist’s, i.e., scrutinizing the structure. In this
I also came upon textual problems. But, of course, one may also address
these matters from the opposite point of departure, something which is the
experience of many editors of medieval manuscript texts. In that case the
researcher collates the text, more often than not in a microfilm copy, where
codicological details are much more difficult to assess. When he or she
comes across problematic textual passages, there may be reason to proceed
to the codex itself, or at least consider whether material issues could have
influenced what the transmitted passages look like.
A reconstruction of Q2–Q3
To understand the design of the first two quires of Stephanites, Q2–Q3, we
need to reconstruct the procedure step by step, as illustrated in the figures A–
C below. The scribe starts out with one ternion and one quinion (figure A).
This is, as I just said, not common procedure. But let us suppose that he had
two quaternions cut and ready, waiting to be inscribed. Somehow they got
disarranged and when he put them in order again he happened to put one leaf
extra in the second bundle instead of the first. So the scribe writes his text
71
with the leaves in this order and then goes on using quaternions for the rest
of the text.
What happens later on is that the outside bifolia of the quinion meet with
wear and tear, and eventually a couple of leaves (ff. x and y) at the end of Q3
may have come loose. They disappear from the book, leaving us with a text
lacuna (figure B) just before Q4.40
No thread can now hold the first two leaves of this quire in place (I have
chosen to give them the alternative numbers of “6a” and “6b” here, since this
shows their logical placing with regard to the textual contents), so they be-
come loose leaves. By restoration or rebinding these two loose leaves are
glued together, so that the stub of one of them is still visible in-between. By
mistake, they are now placed at the end of the quire and not between ff. 6
and 7. That is how they got their present foliation as 12a and 12b, which is
actually misleading to the reader. These extra numbers were added recently,
in pencil, whereas Nicholas de la Torre, on the contrary, deliberately re-
frained from including them in the consecutive numbering when he was
foliating the rest of the manuscript. Stains of damp, which are more pro-
nounced in Q2 and on ff. 12a and 12b but fainter in the rest of Q3, reveal
that these two leaves kept their original place for a considerable period of
time. The numbers added in the lower margin (a number “6” on f. 6v, an “8”
on ff. 7r and 12bv, a “7” on ff. 12ar, 12av, and 12br) show that the person who
did that had figured out the right sequence of the remaining leaves. The Es-
corial scribe Nicholas de la Torre is probably responsible for those numbers
as well, since he obviously did detect the displacement, not foliating the
misplaced leaves with the rest (figure C).41
In its present state Gr 8 is so tightly bound, that it is not really possible to
see whether ff. 12a–12b is sewn in together with the preceeding leaves or
whether this new “singulion” has simply been glued on to f. 12. But the ex-
planation suggested above seems to account for what is observable in the
manuscript here and now.
40
The existence of a lacuna in the text was acknowledged already in the 1780 edition of the
prolegomena which was carried out on the basis of Gr 8 (Prolegomena ad librum 1780, 42).
This dissertation was published as complementary to Sebastian Gottfried Starcke’s 1697
edition which does not include the prolegomena. At the Uppsala disputation Pehr Fabian
Aurivillius acted as respondent while professor Johannes Floderus was the praeses: either of
them may be the one who in fact produced the edition.
41
The shape of the numbers does not contradict this; it is consistent with Torre’s numbering
in the upper margin and in the pinax.
72
Sketch of Q2 and Q3 (ff. 1–6 and 7–12b):
A “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 12a 12b 7 8 9 10 11 12 x y
B “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 12a 12b 7 8 9 10 11 12 x y
C “6a” “6b”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12a 12b
73
Below are given the incipit and explicit for the textual joints where ff. 12a
and 12b, correctly posited, would fit in:

F. 6v, expl.:
( above last ) [...
F. 12ar (“6a” recto), inc.: ...]

F. 12bv (“6b” verso), expl.: ! ". #!$ %

&' &

F. 7r, inc.: &! *+ &&' ( above first – the
ligature & could easily be misread as , and the expected word is
&') '$ -/
The lacuna before f. 13

As for the textual lacuna between f. 12v and f. 13r, the text goes as follows
(the words inside the square brackets are borrowed from Vittorio Puntoni’s
edition, Prolegomenon III, § VIII, line 22 and § X, line 23):
F. 12v, expl.: 0 (sic) 4+5 / " 8 ' 0

9[0 ;...]
F. 13r , inc.: [... < %

] < 9 = < !
! > !9> .
If we compare the text in Gr 8 with Puntoni’s edition the lacuna amounts to

62 lines of printed text. A comparison of the prolegomena (the introductory
chapter, or frame stories, of Stephanites) with Puntoni’s printed text shows
that, roughly estimated, you need 16–18 lines of his edition to fill a page in
Gr 8. 62 lines divided by 4 = 15½, so, hypothetically, we could assume that
the lacuna amounted to four pages, i.e. two leaves. This would tally well
with the sketch we just outlined. But since the textual tradition of Stepha-
nites is rather fluid, the assumption can only be preliminary. The open char-
acter of this kind of text, with all its short novellae or independent stories,
has resulted in an exceedingly variegated textual tradition where different
paragraphs, or sub-stories, could be dropped or included at will. As long as
these “textual omissions” do not break up stories and make them unintelligi-
ble, this could very well be the result of inclusions and eliminations made
through the deliberate choice of an editor somewhere along the way, rather
than an unintentional loss of leaves or faulty scribal omission. Before assert-
ing any definite size of the lacuna, it may be appropriate, in a case like this,
74
to compare the text transmitted in other manuscripts, to see whether they

unanimously include all paragraphs which have gone missing in Gr 8.42
As an example of such a variation in the text one may choose the property
that made Lars-Olof Sjöberg assign Gr 8 to “group V” in his survey of the
textual tradition of Stephanites.43 According to Sjöberg, the manuscripts of
this group (Par. Suppl. 118, Laud. 8, Monac. 551 and Gr 8, or, with
Sjöberg’s signa: P2O2M2U) all share the feature of not including Prole-
gomenon II, 7–8, and the first few paragraphs of Prolegomenon III (III,1–
4a).44 This omission is not announced in Gr 8, except that the next paragraph
(III, 4b) was due to begin with a red initial in the middle of line 2 on f. 9v.
The cross in the margin may point to the scribe’s awareness that this was
indeed opening the third prolegomenon. The ink has faded a bit here due to
moisture damage, but in the way it is written it closely resembles the cross in
the margin of f. 6v, and that one is definitely written together with the pri-
mary layer. In any case, since the omitted part of the text does not coincide
with any page or leaf end in Gr 8, there is no reason to think that anything is
missing from what Theodoros himself wrote. The omission probably took
place earlier in the textual transmission, in some hyparchetype to Sjöberg’s
“group V”. The same probably goes for the novellae in chapter III, 5a, 5c,
and 6a, which are absent in several manuscripts and not only from Gr 8.
The case is different with the lacuna towards the end of Prolegomenon III,
where, as we could see above, Gr 8 breaks off right in the middle of a word,
just a couple of lines into a new paragraph. According to our counting above,
the two leaves gone missing from Gr 8 would have contained Prolegomenon
III, §§ 9a–b and 10a–b. But the other manuscripts in Sjöberg’s “group V”
only include §§ 9a and 10b, not §§ 9b–10a. From the place where Gr 8
42
For the origin, development and textual traditions of Stephanites, or Kallah wa-Dimnah, as
it is called in the Arabic version, see p. 121. Suffice it here to mention two of the versions: the
shorter one, recension A in Lars-Olof Sjöberg’s edition, comprises chs. I–VII and part of ch.
IX, and was created by Symeon Seth in the late 11th c. The longer version, Sjöberg’s recen-
sion B, is the work of two translators, who independently added translations of other parts of
the Arabic text, parts which Symeon Seth had chosen to abridge or exclude. From the B
redaction we get the rest of chapter IX and the addition of chs. X–XI. The B redaction filled
in the gaps in the text where Symeon Seth had made abridgements, supplied the translation of
the frame stories, Prolegomena, and most of the remaining text, chs. VIII, X, and XII–XV.
The only modern edition, SJÖBERG 1962, is devoted to the A recension of Stephanites. For the
B recension we still have to rely on Puntoni’s 1889 edition.
43
Sjöberg’s division of the Stephanites manuscripts into several subrecensions has been ques-
tioned by Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis. Where Sjöberg saw fit to divide the “B-Fassung”
into five subrecensions (, ,,=,; the recension is equivalent to what Sjöberg elsewhere
designates as “group V” and includes, among other manuscripts, Gr 8), Niehoff-Panagiotidis
argues that only two of these, and , are in fact autonomous versions which include new
material translated from Arabic. The other three, , =, and , should rather be counted as con-
taminated versions of the recensions B and B (NIEHOFF-PANAGIOTIDIS 2003, 39–45).
44
SJÖBERG 1962, 80–83. Prolegomenon II ends in Gr 8 with #"
> _Ç

^
@

^
,
> + $
Ê\
® @
$= . The next sentence in Gr 8, from Pro-
legomenon III, 4b, goes as follows: µ\<
< ©
#\

#=Ë @

¡
^
}%.
75
breaks off to the end of § 9a Puntoni’s edition counts 15 lines (i.e. about one
page in Theodoros’ hand). §§ 9b + 10a occupy 30 lines in Puntoni, while §
10b occupies 18 lines. This means that if Gr 8 complied fully with P2O2M2
only one leaf would have gone missing. We can compare this with variations
in other groups of the manuscript tradition; in Sjöberg’s group VI
(K2F2E1E3) the passage from §§ 9b–10a is omitted in three of the four
manuscripts, while the fourth, contaminated, E3 includes these paragraphs.
Another instance of “contamination” or at least of Gr 8 not corresponding
with the group which according to Sjöberg’s investigation is most closely
related to it may be adduced: in Stephanites chapter V Gr 8 has the para-
graph sequence 116a+b, 117, 118a+b+c, while P2O2M2 have these para-
graphs transposed into the sequence 116a, 118b+c, 116b, 117, 118a. As Sjö-
berg puts it: “U folgt in diesem Kapitel der -Gruppe.”45 The practical side of
the problem is not to be ignored either. If we were to assume that Gr 8 fol-
lowed the wording of the rest of the group in Prolegomenon III, we would be
forced to explain why the scribe should have suddenly chosen a ternion + a
single leaf for this part of his text, instead of using even quaternions as is
customary. I consider it far more likely that Gr 8 did include all the para-
graphs the way they stand in Puntoni’s edition, thus not corresponding with
the wording of P2O2M2.
Some reflections around the boundary at f. 76

Between Q11 and Q12 some kind of break or boundary is observable. Being
inside a continuous text it is not a boundary between self-sufficient codi-
cological units, but there is still reason to investigate what may have hap-
pened here in the fabrication process.
What is there for the eye to perceive? Already a little earlier Theodoros
has started to expand the amount of text per page (19 lines to the page on ff.
64–75). The verso of f. 75 is soiled and darkened and the damp stains which
are present in previous quires do not extend into Q12. Another kind of paper
is used in Q12–13, the ink has a new brownish nuance, and the script is
slightly more cursive here. When Theodoros picks up his pen again at f. 76
(or possibly at the last paragraph of f. 75v, since already here the appearance
of the script changes and becomes somewhat larger and more cursive), he
seems to pay attention to the original vertical justification of his Stephanites,
the way it looks in the first eight or nine quires (up until f. 63), but extends
the length of his lines slightly. It seems he is no longer as meticulous with
the mise-en-page: inside the same writing area he can vary the number of
lines. Successively the number of lines per page grows, as does the conden-
sation of text, and also the writing area increases a bit. After these gradual
and at first almost imperceptible changes Theodoros chooses a binion as his
45
SJÖBERG 1962, 76, n. 26.
76
last quire of U2. The reason is obvious: he did not plan to add further texts
after Stephanites, but simply wanted to end this unit (or even independent
book?) with as little waste of paper as possible. The Stephanites text comes
to an end exactly on the last line of a verso page: professional work, in short.
That one leaf, f. 87r–v, was left blank thereafter is not necessarily the result of
oversight on the scribe’s behalf, since the extra leaf protects the text from
attrition.
It is clear that U2 is complete (but for the two leaves in Q3) and yet its
execution has been done in two phases, leaving us with a so-called extended
unit.46 What explanation could there be for the kind of break in the copying
work visible at f. 76? One hypothesis (a) could be that the scribe simply ran
out of paper. Maybe he was visiting somewhere to copy the work and did not
bring enough material with him to finish the text. So he had to return to the
library, or whatever place was harboring the model manuscript, on another
occasion. Another possible explanation (b) could be that he did write a com-
plete text in the first go, but that the last two quires were then ruined or got
lost somehow, since the work lay unbound in bundles. That would have
forced him to rewrite the end of the text once more.
But there are some complications to consider. If we look at the passage in
the Stephanites text where Theodoros had arrived when he broke off at f. 75,
we find that it is in the story about the King and the Parrot, i.e. chapter IX,
§ 133b in Puntoni’s edition. According to Sjöberg the last passage that the
A-recension manuscripts include is the beginning of chapter IX (§§ 132 and
133a). The rest of chapter IX and the following chapters X–XV, were never
part of Symeon Seth’s translation. § 133b, which includes the Parrot story, is
therefore not present in the A-recension. The same paragraph is lacking also
in the B -recension, with a few exceptions,47 and about one of the manu-
scripts of the B-group Sjöberg writes: “In E3 fehlt der §133b bis auf die
letzte Zeile dieses Abschnittes.”48 The rest of the B-recension manuscripts
include § 133b. It is not unthinkable—this would present us with yet an hy-
pothesis (c)—that Theodoros at first had at his disposal a model manuscript
which lacked the final chapters of Stephanites. Using that model he got as
46
The terminology for units which have been interfered with in different ways is elaborated
by Gumbert (GUMBERT 2004, 30–33). A codicological unit can grow by various means: by
enrichment, if a new layer or guest text is added on the original leaves; by enlargement, if a
limited number of leaves are added and they “do not fundamentally change the quire struc-
ture” (p. 42); by extension, if “a substantial amount of matter – at least one quire – has been
added” (loc.cit.). To distinguish between the last two categories (the enlarged and the ex-
tended unit) seems to me almost too pedantic. To my mind the quire structure is changed
when you put in an extra leaf or a couple of leaves somewhere: putting a terminological divid-
ing line at precisely one quire extra seems meaningless and complicated. I would like to sug-
gest that we use the latter term, extended unit, for both categories since they still need to be
qualitatively explained in each case.
47
SJÖBERG 1962, 77, n. 31: “P3P4 und A4 enthalten den §133b. In A4 fehlt doch durch Blatt-
ausfall der §133b, 17–30.”
48
SJÖBERG 1962, 77, n. 32.
77
far as the beginning of chapter IX (Q2–11, or ff. 1–75 in Gr 8). Then he had
to replenish the text with the help of another manuscript offering him the rest
of ch. IX and chs. X–XV. That this was done at a later stage (when he had
already used up all the paper carrying the “oxhead” watermark) would ex-
plain why the leaves of the preceding quires got worn and soiled, waiting
unbound on some shelf.
One may also speculate whether the paper used in Q12–13 corresponds to
the kind in another manuscript by Theodoros’ hand, Parisinus 3045 (copied
in 1486 and 1488). Because of the octavo-format of Gr 8 (which splits the
watermarks and makes them end up folded at the spine) and the considerable
trimming of the leaves, it is difficult to establish whether this one instance of
the watermark in Q13 is the exact replica of the Parisian counterpart (Ha.
Balance 41; cf. above, p. 53). But it seems very likely from the look of the
remainders. If that is so, then we could perhaps infer that there was actually
a delay of a few years until the last two quires of Stephanites were added to
Gr 8. That the Stephanites text in Gr 8, which primarily belongs to the
B-group, in some places seems more closely related to the B -group49 re-
veals further the complex and contaminated textual transmission, and might
also be taken as an indication that the third hypothesis (c) is reasonable. This
is not the place to actually prove this point, since I am not thoroughly inves-
tigating the whole manuscript tradition or aiming at an edition. I still think it
is fruitful to raise the questions and see where this kind of reasoning may
lead us.
Secondary layers of U2
The Stephanites text in Gr 8 never got as far as being rubricated during
Theodoros’ command. No headings were ever inserted and the rather sloppy
red initials were added afterwards by someone who used a pale red ink of
inferior quality. One may compare the initials of the following units, U3–6,
which were undoubtedly supplied by Theodoros himself, and which look
qualitatively different both in ink and in style of execution.
The very last leaf of U2 also represents a secondary layer of inscription.
The text on f. 87r–v was added by a later owner of the book. One date is given
in the first line of f. 87r and a second one in the middle of the same page:
}
^ ( ")($) () (
) (A.D. 1546,
September 10, indiction year 5)

(
) Ç ($) = (Anno Mundi 7055, i.e., A.D. 1546,
indiction year 5, December 9.
49
So for example in chapter V; cf. SJÖBERG 1962, 76, n. 26.
78
The notes on this folio make difficult reading. Some details were lost with
the trimming of the page and the hand itself is very cursive. I would still say
that the person adding the notes was an able writer, exhibiting a flowing and
adroit hand. The first section of the notes appears to be a petition draft on
land litigation, a complaint concerning a piece of land close to the marsh (

_}
"#
). A couple of names are mentioned:

...
µ
...,
and a ^ ¬. The next few lines include the name of a
bishop Theoleptos, who blessed the piece of land and sprinkled it with holy
water. On the verso page there is a doxology, and lastly some pen trials.
F. 87r (90 % of original size).
79
Quires: The unit is composed of two quires (Q14–15), both quaternions.

Paper: The paper in U3 is different from the kinds in U2 but corresponds
with the paper used for U4, U5, and U6. Watermarks in the form of scissors
appear in both quires. A similar, but not identical, watermark would be Ha.
Ciseaux 68 (1473–1474).
Justification: 95 x 60/65 mm, 17 lines per page.
Scribe: Theodoros, except for the headline on f. 88r: this line was, I be-
lieve, written by co-scribe A, whose collaboration Theodoros has made use
of on some pages in U4. We will come back to this in connection with that
unit. Suffice it right now to point out the similarities of the word #< in the
title on f. 88r with the same word on f. 104r line 4, the extra flourish of
in the title and the corresponding one in at the end of f. 107r.
Taken together with letter forms such as crescent-shaped sigma, quadratic
nu, and the overall appearance, these traits do indicate that this scribe has
effectuated the first title of U3.
Texts: Nos. 5–10. Four larger texts (Isocrates Oration 1; Gregory of Na-
zianzos Ep. 114; letters by Hippocrates and Anacharsis). One micro-text (On
the soul and its faculties) on f. 98r to complete the page at the end of the first
main text. The unit ends with a section of five sayings from the Alexander
Romance filling up the last one and a half page of Q15. These, and the mi-
cro-text mentioned above, are written with a thinner nib, the ink being
slightly different in blackness. The last three lines of Q15 are not from the
Alexander Romance, but may be seen as an appended commentary to the
fifth saying. The first sentence comes from Libanios, Declamation 6, the
second from Prov. 11: 22.
Decoration: Initial for first main text (Isocrates): 5 lines in height, red,
flourished. Second main text (Gregory of Nazianzos): initial same size and
kind. Third main text (Hippocrates): each epistle starts with a red, flourished
initial, 2–3 lines in height. Fourth main text (Anacharsis): each of the eight
epistles starts with a red initial, 2–3 lines in height. All but the last one are
flourished. Also the small page filler in f. 98r, Text 6, has its own rubricized
title, half a line long, and very small red initial letters in a few places. Even
the very last line (mentioning the five senses) got its own title in red, this
time in the margin (an afterthought by Theodoros?). A tiny line filler—three
dots and a curved line in red—ends the page. In the last text of U3 (the say-
ings) the initials are, in comparison to the main texts, smaller (1–1½ lines in
height) and less embellished.
Condition: First and last page of U3 are more soiled than the rest of the
pages. There is a diagonal rip in the lower margin of ff. 97–108; in ff. 97–
102 the torn part has been cut out, probably to avoid further ripping into the
80
writing area. F. 103 hangs loose. The rip is seen also in U4, which means
that the damage probably happened subsequent to the binding of the codex.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – new text initiated
on first recto, also emphasized with a rubricated heading and a large orna-
mented initial; B – first recto is darker, more soiled than the rest of the
leaves; J – a new watermark is introduced; L – the mise-en-page has
changed: writing area now lesser in height and with 17 lines per page; M –
in this unit all the decorations have been neatly executed by the main scribe,
as it seems. The red ink is of very good quality compared to the one in U2.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text ends at last
verso of Q15, a new text beginning on first recto of next quire (U4); B –
soiled last verso; F and G – from ink and other details it seems that the last
one and a half page was written in a second relay, after the main texts were
finished though by the same scribe.
Bridging components at a manifest unit boundary

The boundary criteria which distinguish U3 from the preceding unit make it
quite clear that we are dealing with another, independent unit. In fact, this
border is one of the most manifest in the whole book. But, of course, there
are also connecting links. There is the main scribe himself, active in every
unit (the pinakes excepted). Another link, if we look at the book as a whole,
is the paper; the same watermark that we found in U2, appears in several
other units further on in the book. This fact suggests that the scribe created
U2, U8–12, and U14–15 at about the same period of time. So even if there is
a change in paper between U2 and U3, we need to look further to see the
complete picture of connective and separating traits.
In its narrative contents U3 concords well with U2. The Isocrates speech,
To Demonicus, is often held to be a kind of prince’s mirror, or paraenetic
text—and the same goes for Stephanites and Ichnelates, besides being “a
good read” and a widely circulated text. The letter from Gregory of Nazian-
zos to a certain Keleusios also happens to present a small but charming fable
story within it and with a humorous touch: no patristic gravity there. The
epistolary novels, Texts 8–9, are examples of the highly favored epistolo-
graphic genre, popular among the Byzantines in general, and also with our
scribe, Theodoros, as it seems. But they are also narratives, stories, thus go-
ing well together with the preceding texts.
Using sayings, proverbs, or other micro-texts is a convenient way of fill-
ing up an area which was left over in the first round, and we can see how
Theodoros handles this skilfully at many points in Gr 8. The excerpts from
the Alexander Romance are well adjusted to the other narrative texts in U3.
The way the scribe keeps to the subject and adds the two extra commenting
lines to the last Alexander saying, goes to show how carefully prepared these
quires were, even down to the page fillers.
81
Quires: Q16–18: [104–111; 112–119; 120–127] 3 quaternions.

Paper: Same paper as in U3 and U5–6. Watermark: scissors.
Justification: 95 x 65 mm, 17 lines per page.
Scribe: Theodoros, except for ff. 104r, 107r, 109r and 112r (and line 6 on
f. 106v), where co-scribe A has taken turns with him.50 Chapter headings and
decorations are in Theodoros’ hand also on the four pages mentioned above.
Texts: Nos. 11–15. Mainly medical texts: two longer ones (Paul of Ae-
gina and a botanical lexicon) and three shorter ones completing the last leaf
(a formula from Aëtios; a note on contraceptives; the seven ages in life).
Decoration: Rubrication effectuated in titles, initials and marginalia. On
f. 104r the title passes into a rubricated strapwork line filler of the same de-
sign as the headpiece on f. 128r (U5). Floriate initial on f. 104r: four lines in
height, ditto on f. 106r. Subsidiary red initials: 2–3 lines in height. Also the
“secondary” texts at the end of the unit have been bestowed with floriate
initials, 2–3 lines in height. On f. 127v there are two line fillers with the same
vegetal design as most of Theodoros’ initials. Theodoros seems to have had
a problem with the red ink in some places: on f. 122v some initials are more
brownish than red, and on f. 125v the red color is very pale. There are para-
graph numbers (–) in the margins of Text 11 corresponding to chapters
73–99 in Paul of Aegina’s Medical compendium, but not so in chapter 100
(i.e. the letter from Diocles to King Antigonus); instead Theodoros signals it
as a new text, with the customary cross before the rubricated title, and a
large floriate initial at the beginning of the text. In this last chapter a reader
has added some key words in the margin and also a couple of large plain
initials where he thought it was needed. But Theodoros’ text is actually
complete: no initials are missing in those places. In Text 12, the botanical
lexicon, the lemmata all have their first letter in red. Perhaps a marginal
decoration was planned at the beginning of this lexicon, f. 122v (as we have
it on ff. 147r and 152r); the red ink there is smeared out.
Condition: First recto and last verso of the unit are soiled and stained.
Water damage in upper and outer margins. Stains of mildew. There is a rip
in the lower margin on ff. 104–108 (the same rip is seen in the latter part of
U3).
on first recto, also emphasized with a rubricated heading and a large orna-
mented initial; B – soiled first recto, separate damp stains which do not reach
into neighboring units; O – the texts in U4 all deal with medicine one way or
another, something which none of the other units in Gr 8 does.
50
The handwriting of co-scribe A is described infra. See also the general section on scribes,
p. 55.
82

verso of Q18, a new text beginning on first recto of next quire (U5); B – last
verso soiled and stained; F and G – the shorter texts on f. 127r–v (Texts 13–
15) seem to have been added in a second relay judging from the ink.
Theodoros’ collaborator, co-scribe A

As I mentioned above, p. 59, co-scribe A has seconded Theodoros not only
in Gr 8 but also in Parisinus graecus 3045. There is no identification of the
scribe at present. It seems peculiar that this collaborator has been filling in
intermittently and on recto pages only (with the one-line exception on
f. 106v). Could this be an indication that this was a student or apprentice who
was allowed to “have a go at it,” while Theodoros maintained the standard?
If Theodoros had already copied the opposite page, the preceding verso, it
would have been easier to eye the exemplary size and shaping of the script.
Most likely, it was co-scribe A who added the first heading of U3, on f.
88r (cf. p. 80). Hence it follows that we cannot use the scribal situation in U4
as a boundary criterium in relation to U3. In fact, it would work the other
way around, as a unifying trait which concerns the whole book rather than
just “unit level,” especially since we have the same combination of scribes in
the Paris manuscript.
Conspicuous traits of his handwriting are: uniformly quadratic or circular
letter-forms with small start- and end-spots on most strokes; crescent-shaped
sigma; the -ligature (looking like “a large stigma”);
with tau shaped
like a semi-circular stroke (kind of like the left half of a heart) bound to the
alpha; the diagonal strokes of letters chi and delta stand out on the page (cf.
photo below). Even though the overall result looks fairly even, the hand
seems to me less fluent and resourceful as compared to Theodoros’. For
example, even if we limit the comparison to ff. 104–112, the leaves in im-
mediate vicinity to the work of co-scribe A, Theodoros makes use of a much
larger repertoir of variegated ligatures. The following table illustrates letter
forms that differ considerably in the two hands. When more than one shape
of a letter is listed, the first one is quantitatively most important (graphs
scanned from Gr 8, ff. 104–109):
Letters and signs Theodoros co-scribe A
beta
epsilon
83
zeta
eta
ny
ksi
sigma
omega
$

F. 104r (upper half of the page, original size). Scribe: co-scribe A.

The rubricated heading and decorations are in Theodoros’ hand.
84
Quires: Q19–21: [128–135; 136–143; 144–151]: three quaternions.

Paper: Same paper as in U3–4 and U6. Watermark: scissors.
Scribe: Theodoros.
Texts: Nos. 16–22. Philosophical treatises on the soul and its constituents,
one by Gregory Thaumatourgos, one by John Philoponos, and two anony-
mous passages; Manuel Christonymos, Monody on the Fall of Constantin-
ople; Leonardo Bruni, The Constitution of Florence; a short account of the
seven wonders of the ancient world.
Decoration: Rubricated strapwork headpiece on f. 128r (cf. first recto of
U4, f. 104r). Titles and subsidiary titles in red. Floriate initials in red (five
lines in height) on ff. 135v and 147r (smaller ones of the same design pas-
sim). On f. 138v the initial is even larger and more embellished (six lines in
height), and here it is outlined in two colours, red and golden-beige ink. The
golden-beige ink is here also used for the accompanying heading and line
filler. Floriate line fillers accompany the titles on ff. 138v and 147r and in the
latter case there is also a flower in the margin. It may be noted that the large
initial on f. 135v was really not called for: in the text there is just the begin-
ning of a subordinate paragraph, the kind that most often takes an initial two
lines in height. Only this time it happened to stand on the first line of the
page, thence the enhancement. The last three lines of the unit (Seven Won-
ders) were written in a second relay, as a page filler. For the lack of a rubri-
cated title the first half of line one is blank. The small plain initials were
inserted at a later stage, and poorly at that, first in pale red and then anew
with greyish ink at a couple of places.
Condition: F. 128 hangs loose. A rip in the upper margin of ff. 144–145
reaches far into the text (no textual loss). The lower corner of f. 151 is torn
off. The unit’s first recto and last verso are soiled. Also in the middle of one
quire, on ff. 138v–139r, the paper is soiled and darkened, supposedly from
readers handling it. Was it perhaps the large, floriate initial that someone
was interested in displaying, or was it the text itself which attracted more
attention than other parts of the unit (Text 20, Monody on the Fall of Con-
stantinople)? On ff. 128–129 wax stains and a burn mark (did someone have
trouble with the candle by reading?). In the upper margin of f. 128r there are
some traces of words in red ink, most of it lost by trimming. It could be ei-
ther a prayer formula or a subtitle of some kind: my guess is the latter, since
prayer formulae tend to be written in black, i.e., the same ink that the scribe
starts out filling the page with. The fact that the first text of the unit includes
quite a few such subtitles in red corroborates this supposition.
on first recto, title enhanced by rubricated headpiece; B – first recto of unit
85
more soiled that the rest of the leaves; O – in last unit there were only medi-
cal texts, whereas here the emphasis lies on contemporary, fifteenth-century
texts.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text end coincides
with end of Q21; B – last verso soiled and damaged, the corner torn off; F
and G – Text 22 was added secondarily in a blank space at the end.
Theodoros as rubricator
I have assumed that the floriate initials and other embellishments and deco-
rations are made by Theodoros, and not by somebody else, on account of the
rubricated headlines. These are clearly in Theodoros’ own handwriting (with
one exception on f. 88r in U3) and the red ink is identical to the one used for
the decorative elements.
How did the rubricator work (in this case Theodoros himself)? Since
Theodoros omitted both large and smaller initials in the text to be filled in
afterwards with red, he probably had to read through his own text rather
carefully so as not to miss out on some of the voids. In some places this be-
comes obvious, since the corrections which Theodoros has put in the text—
such as additions of accents—are made in red ink (e.g. on f. 128v a question
mark, f. 129r accents, f. 131r an inserted \). The initials at the beginning of
a line were always set out in the margin, outside of the justification area. By
vowels Theodoros usually put the accent and breathing there right away, in
black ink, thereby giving a hint for where to fill in the rubricated initial.
Floriate initial from f. 138v (original size).
86
Quires: Q22–27 [152–159; 160–167; 168–175; 176–183; 184–191; 192–

199] 6 quarternions.
Paper: Same paper as in U3–5. Watermark: scissors.
Scribe: Theodoros.
Texts: Nos. 23–39. Several texts from the mid-fifteenth century (by Ple-
thon, Bessarion, Nicholas Sagundino, Mark Eugenikos); a declamation by
Libanios and a couple of texts attributed to John Chrysostom on much the
same theme (women’s wretchedness); two short theological tracts (one
anonymous, one by John of Damascus); a hymn to the Theotokos; a selec-
tion of sayings; two letters by Isidore of Pelousion; a gnomology consisting
of excerpts from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike. Pen trials/notes
(including a name,
# }#
).
Decoration: Rubricated titles accompanied by floriate decorations (f.
152r), a headpiece in strapwork design (f. 162v), or just followed by floriate
initials of varying size, from 5 to 1 line in height. Floriate line filler on f.
162r. The last three leaves are not rubricated, and the two-line blank space on
f. 197r never got a title filled in. The secondary initials on these leaves, ff.
197–199, are in light brown ink.
Condition: Soiled first recto and last verso of unit. Also at the quire
boundary between Q23 and Q24 the pages are darkened and soiled. The
corner of f. 167 was torn off but has been stitched on again with hemp yarn.
Water damage especially large in Q23, but also visible in upper and outer
margins of Q24–25. Edges scorched towards end of unit, Q27.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – new text on first
recto; B – first recto soiled.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – quire end and text
end coincide; B – last verso soiled; F and G – ext 38 (the Synopsis
Chronike gnomology) represents a secondary layer of inscription, added on
leaves that were left blank in the first round. After this text follows yet an-
other—tertiary—layer (Text 39), in the form of scribbles and a name, pre-
sumably an owner’s additions.

: a schematic outline of the virtues
On f. 162v there is a diagram illustrating the cardinal virtues prudence, right-
eousness, fortitude, and temperance, and the qualities associated with each
of them. It is worked out in red and black ink with decorations in the same
floriate design as Theodoros uses for his initials. The diagram summarizes
what has been presented in the text on the previous page and is introduced
on f. 162r with the request: Ì + =
_¬

.
87
The fact that the numbering in the diagram seems somewhat random is ex-
plained by the list on the preceding page: here the qualities are listed in order
from to " (1–12), and in the diagram Theodoros adjusted the numbers
accordingly. The planning of rubricated initials did not turn out quite right,
though; when he wrote the words in black he forgot to leave out some of the
initial letters, so that as a result we now have read #
$, _

,

, et cetera. This indicates that the visual appearance of the rubri-
cation was more important than a correctly written text. Another oversight
on Theodoros’ part was to change the size of the writing area below the dia-
gram. Apparently he took the text written in black ink in the diagram as the
normal left border position, with the result that the text lines are indented
and the floriate initial is placed inside the normal mise-en-page instead of in
the margin where it ought to be. The diagram is reproduced on the front
cover (dust jacket) of this book.
F. 167v. The torn-off corner was stitched on

with hemp yarn.
88
Quires: Q28: [200–207] quaternion.

Paper: Watermark in the form of an anchor on f. 204 (a small fragment of
it also on f. 203), remotely similar to Br. Ancre 460 (1475–1490). This wa-
termark appears only in U7, though it is reasonable to believe that the same
paper is used for Q31 (in U9); the quality and laid pattern are identical but
no watermark is visible in the ternion.
Scribe: Theodoros.
Texts: Nos. 40–41. George Gemistos Plethon, Reply to the Treatise in
Support of the Latin Doctrine (f. 200r–206v line 1); Mark Eugenikos, notes
on the filioque doctrine, inc. (
!" (f. 206v–207v).
Decoration: Rubrication planned but not executed. Two lines are left
blank on f. 200r, indicating that a headpiece or some other means of decora-
tion was supposed to accompany the title (cf. the introduction of units 4, 5,
and 13; ff. 104, 128, and 286 respectively). In the upper margin Nicholas de
la Torre (cf. U1) has added

$ . he blank title space has
been used by another reader, who gawkishly tried to copy the first line of the
text. Likewise, the plain initials on f. 200r and f. 206v were added afterwards.
Also on f. 206v Theodoros left a blank line for a rubricated title; here some-
body added “ ~ } }

_().”
Condition: Soiled first recto (difference less conspicuous on last verso);
the overall impression is that this quire is cleaner than both the preceding
and the following units. Upper edge slightly singed.
on first recto, the text was supposed to carry a rubricated heading; J – differ-
ent kind of paper; L – different mise-en-page; (M) – preceding unit was
rubricated and decorated, whereas this one is not.51
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text end and quire
end coincide, a new text beginning on first recto of next quire (U8); F –
small blank space ending last verso.
51
I have put the last criterion in parenthesis, since its weight is lessened by the fact that the
last three leaves of U6 are not rubricated. It could be that the scribe after having finished U6,
though with the last three leaves blank, then decided to expand the unit with Text 38 (the
Synopsis Chronike gnomology) and what is now U7. In that case the boundary between U6
and U7 is blurred by the fact that neither Text 38 nor Texts 40–41 are rubricated. On the other
hand, U7 may very well have been created independently; we cannot know if Text 38 was
added to U6 before or after the creation of U7.
89
The affinity between U6 and U7

The two texts of U7 both fit into the intellectual discussions which were
topical in the aftermath of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438–1445. The
same goes for the preceding unit, where several texts by Plethon and his
circle of acquaintances are included as well as texts by Mark Eugenikos (ff.
152–173 and 190–193). A question that lies near at hand is whether the two
units were jointly planned. If there would have been space enough in the last
quire of U6, these two texts would, from the viewpoint of contents, suitably
have fitted in that section. Could that have been Theodoros’ original plan?
Only, when he had finished Text 31 (Mark Eugenikos Analogies) there were
six leaves left blank and the Plethon text, Reply to the Treatise in Support of
the Latin Doctrine, would require seven leaves. This may have led him to
postpone copying what are now Texts 40–41, putting them in a separate
quire, and to proceed filling the last quire of U6 with other items instead. As
the basis for such a supposition we would need some kind of inverted
O-criterion: the absence of a break in contents, the affinity in genre/au-
thors/texts, would supposedly point to a deliberate juxtaposition. Although
not wholly unlikely, there is a catch here: the juxtaposition can be primary
(by inscription), secondary but still made by the scribe himself at some later
stage in the copying process, or it may be done on a much later occasion
when somebody else decides to create a composite out of separate codi-
cological units. An “inverted O-criterion” is, accordingly, not very practical
as an analytical tool.
If we consider what is clearly a secondary layer at the end of U6, it only
comprises the last three leaves, i.e., the excerpts from Manasses’ Synopsis
Chronike, Text 38 (plus an owner’s scribblings, Text 39). There are no traces
of a break in Theodoros’ work procedure after Text 31 (i.e. on f. 193r),
something which could perhaps be expected if we adhere to the hypothesis
of joint units. Another complication is the rubrication, present in U6 (except
for the secondarily written leaves, ff. 197–199) but absent in U7. We also
need to consider the difference in watermarks which may tell against an un-
interrupted work session (an admittedly weak argument, since one can cer-
tainly run out of one sort of paper and go on copying from another stack of
paper). The only moderately “safe” supposition is that Theodoros—or who-
ever prepared the book for binding—recognized the similar contents of U6
and U7 and thought it befitting to combine them in the composite book.
90
Quires: Q29–30: [208–215; 216–223] 2 quaternions.

Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, also used for the last quire
of U9, U10–12 and U14–15. Watermark: oxhead.
Justification: 103 x 65 mm, 18 lines to the page.
Scribe: Theodoros.
Texts: No. 42, a selection of excerpts from John Tzetzes’ Book of Histo-
ries (Chiliades), including a letter from Tzetzes to John Lachanas (Chil. 4,
471–779).
Decoration: Rubrication of title and initials planned but not executed by
Theodoros. In upper margin of f. 208r a later hand has filled in a short title,
most of it illegible due to stains and dirt (
... ?) The initials
in place were probably added by the same reader, sometimes wrongly and
never elegantly. From letter forms and ink it seems likely that the
reader/owner who wrote his name in the preceding unit, £
#
¶#
(U6, f. 199v) is responsible for these additions. Similar short
titles are scattered throughout the unit.
Condition: The unit is severely stained by moisture. First recto and last
verso soiled. On f. 217 there is a rip in the lower margin.
on first recto, blank line left for rubricated title; B – first recto stained and
soiled, the water damage does not match with U7; J – different pa-
per/watermark; O – contents change from fifteenth-century theological dis-
cussions in U7 to historical/mythical episodes in verse in U8.
end coincide; B – last verso darkened and stained; E – an extra line added
and script compressed on last verso.
Transposed units?
There is a possibility that units 6–10 were intended to be arranged in another
sequence than the present one and that they happened to be transposed at
binding or rebinding. This is not obvious from the contents: no texts have
been affected internally. But if we put together indications of a codicological
nature we get the following picture (outlined in the table, below). The paper
quality and watermarks differ between units: scissors in U6, anchor in U7,
oxhead in U8, probably anchor in U9 (at least the paper quality agrees with
U7), oxhead in U10. U7 (Q28) and first quire of U9 (Q31) are cleaner than
the other parts; they show almost no water damage. Even the last verso of
U7 and the first recto of U9 look neat. U8, on the contrary, has large con-
spicuous moisture stains in upper and outer margins and at the bottom of the
spine. The stain in the upper margin seems gradually to appear in Q31 and is
91
fully developed in Q32 of U9, and in Q32 the rest of the staining seems to
correspond with what is visible in U8. Some quires are singed at the edges,
especially Q27 (U6) and Q32. When it comes to the number of lines to the
page, there are 17 lines in U6, 18 in U7 (except last verso which has 17 lines
+ blank space at the end); U8 has got 18 lines, as does U10 as well; in U9
Q31 has a writing area of 17 lines while Q32 has 18 lines.
Unit Watermark Moisture stains Singeing Lines per page
front edge of
U6 scissors yes last quire 17 lines
18 (last verso
U7 anchor no no 17)
U8 oxhead yes no 18 lines
incipient from
U9, Q31 anchor? mid-quire on no 17 lines
U9, Q32 oxhead yes upper edge 18 lines
U10 oxhead yes no 18 lines
Some of the differences outlined here may point to U9 having originally

been produced in sequence with U7 and prior to U8. As an hypothesis we
may suppose that U8 was thereafter inserted in-between those two. The
original unit sequence would then have been U6—U7—U9—U8—U10.
How would this hypothesis affect the contents? The texts in U7 are
closely connected with some in U6, thence probably planned to follow there.
U8 is independent and could stand anywhere; the Tzetzes episodes and his
letter to Lachanas fit well with several units in Gr 8, not least with U9 and
U10, though. U10 has one stanza (Text 52) of the poem Carmen Paraeneti-
cum which, in U9, is presented together with the rest of the stanzas (Text
46). Thus it makes more sense that U9 was produced prior to U10 and that
Theodoros reused some lines of the poem in a subsequent unit. On the
whole, the reasons for connecting U7 to U9 are material/codicological rather
than based on contents, but there is nothing that speaks against a transposal
of U8 and U9 at some stage in the composition or recomposition of Gr 8.
92
Quires: Q31: [224–229] ternion. Q32: [230–237] quaternion.

Paper: Q31: no watermark visible, but the laid pattern matches the paper
of Q28 (U7), with the watermark anchor. Q32: watermark oxhead, i.e. the
same paper as in the main part of U2, and in U8, U10–12, and U14–15.
Justification: Q31: 98 x 65–70 mm. Q32: 102 x 65 mm. 17 lines to the
page on ff. 224–226 and 228–229; 18 lines on f. 227r–v though still inside the
same mise-en-page as the surrounding pages; 18 lines on ff. 230–237.
Scribe: Theodoros. Later additions of “titles” to the epistles in greyish
ink.
Texts: Nos. 43–47. A selection of twenty letters by Theophylact Simo-
kates; the Decalogue; lists of kings; an anonymous poem, Carmen Parae-
neticum; a three-line epigram as a page filler.
Decoration: No decoration effectuated by Theodoros. First line on f. 224r
left blank for heading; likewise a blank line spared for the title of Text 45
(lists of kings). Small plain initials were added later in light brown ink.
Condition: In Q31 f. 224r looks fine; 229v and 230r are slightly more
soiled. Q32 is singed and stained by moisture.
recto; C – the unit starts with a ternion; J – first quire of different paper than
that of U8, but seems to be of the same kind as the one used for U7; L –
writing area of different size and the number of lines to the page differs in
first quire; N – prayer formula written by Theodoros in upper margin of first
recto: + ()^ "¬= .
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – text boundary and
quire boundary coincide; B – last verso soiled, the scorched edges of last
quire have no counterpart in next unit.
The change in layout between Q31 and Q32

There are some differences between the two quires that together make up
U9. A different kind of paper is used for the second quire and the mise-en-
page is not quite the same. But since Text 43 overlaps the quire boundary,
Q31–32 ought to have been produced together. Had Theodoros used a qua-
ternion instead of a ternion, the letters by Simokates would have fitted
nicely. Could this be another instance of Theodoros overlooking the size of
the quire at hand (cf. U2, Q2–3)? Or was he just determined to use up that
kind of paper (with the anchor watermark) anyhow, knowing that the text
would have to reach into another quire? Either way there is a change in writ-
ing area in the middle of U9 and in mid-text, something which is otherwise
rare. One way to explain this is to suggest that all the quires with the water-
mark “oxhead” were prepared in advance to have a writing area of ca.
93
103x65 mm, just as we have it in Q32 and also in most of the other units
carrying oxhead watermarks. On the other hand, one would further expect
the writing areas of Q31 and Q28 (U7) to correspond if—as I hypothesized
earlier—they were produced in sequence from the same stack of paper.52
They do not correspond. This looks aggravating for the credibility of our
hypothesis; perhaps the units were not transposed after all? There is a way to
salvage this, though: let us suppose that Theodoros has just copied U7 and it
lays there on the table. He proceeds with Q31 (U9), and has as his model the
last verso page of U7. That particular page had only 17 lines of text, whereas
the rest of U7 had 18 lines to each page. The outcome is that Theodoros will
design the writing area of Q31 to equal the layout of f. 207v, which is exactly
how it has turned out in Gr 8. Consequently, what seemed to be a compro-
mising factor has now been shown to corroborate the link between U7 and
U9.

Paper: Same paper as in Q2–Q11 of U2, also present in U8, in Q32 of
U9, in U11–12 and in U14–15. Watermark: oxhead.
Justification: 103x65 mm, 18 lines to the page.
Scribe: Theodoros. In this unit and also in units 11–13 Theodoros uses a
dark brown ink, whereas in the other parts of Gr 8 the ink is generally deep
black.
Texts: Nos. 48–52. A florilegium encompassing almost 200 sayings from
alpha to omega (inc. |#\ @%
= $); a short chronological note on
the Trojan war, Homer, and Xerxes’ crossing of the Hellespont; a lexicon of
synonyms (inc. |##
¨ Ê®
); Michael Choniates’ Elegy on Athens;
one stanza of Carmen Paraeneticum.53
Decoration: The plain initials are secondary, added in light brown ink (cf.
U9).
Condition: Soiled first recto and last verso. Water damage especially in
upper and outer margins.
recto; B – first recto soiled; K – color of ink different than in preceding
units.
end coincide; B – last verso soiled; E – script is smaller and more crammed
52
For the discussion on transposed units, see U8, above.
53
Stanza 17 of Carmen Paraeneticum is also met with in Text 46, ff. 234r–237v (U9).
94
on last verso, especially in Text 52, and an extra line was added at the end,
thus stretching the writing area.
U10 is a relatively uncomplicated unit. Also in contents (sayings, a synonym

lexicon, poems) it harmonizes well with adjacent units, and this is true
whether one presupposes a transposition of units 8 and 9 or not. U8 with its
gnomic stories on verse, U9 with its fictitious letters, lists, and a poem: nei-
ther sticks out in relation to U10 (cf. discussion on these units, above).

Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, in U8–10, U12, and U14–
15. Watermark: oxhead.
Scribe: Theodoros, using dark brown ink.
Texts: Nos. 53–55. An anonymous text on the soul (inc. Í + _
®_¯); two short sayings; an anonymous prose paraphrase of
Gregory of Nazianzos’ Carmen 2.9, De virtute.
Decoration: A blank line saved for a title on f. 254r and f. 257r. Rubri-
cated initials planned but not executed. Small plain initials added by a later
hand (the first one mistakenly as instead of ). On f. 256r–v there are simple
diagrams which give an outline of what has been discussed in Text 53; here
too some initials are missing.
Condition: Damp stains in common with preceding and ensuing units.
First recto is soiled (but not the last verso).
recto; B – first recto page is more soiled than the rest of the quire.
end coincide; E – on last verso the writing area is enlarged with yet another
line and the script is both smaller and more compressed to fit the text on the
page.
U11–12: One divisible unit or two single but closely related

units?
One may doubt whether U11 should actually be seen as separate from the
ensuing unit. The texts are admittedly complete and we do have compressed
writing at the end of the quire. Still, it is important to notice that the last
verso of U11 and the first recto of U12 do not seem very soiled or worn. It is
thus likely that these quires were put together quite soon after having been
95
copied, or even that they were copied at the same time, i.e. as one single unit
comprising two separable parts. Nevertheless, I have chosen to present these
parts as two different units, and rather discuss how much or little boundary
“proof” we have in each case. As noted above, when the data are inconclu-
sive you lose more in bringing the presumed units together than by keeping
them apart in the overall schedule. It is safer to admit the vagueness in pre-
sent criteria than to blur possible differences by implicitly sketching a tight
link.
Recycling of page fillers

The two sayings at the bottom of f. 256v are the same as were used on f. 196v
(Text 37, U6) but for a slight change in word order in the second one: ¬
=
_
Î "$´¨ © + }#}$
^ =
#\
(re-
membrance of death is beneficial in life; philosophy’s definition: the study
of death).54 From a stylistic point of view, the two sentences are here nicely
knit together through the crosswise position of the terms ¬ =
–
=
#\
. But there is no way to tell which of the two instances was
primary. Besides, it is more interesting to see how they are used, whether the
scribe wanted to make them fit with the context or if it is all the same to him
what preceded the blank space. In this instance the sayings follow a text with
philosophical contents, whereas in U6 this is less obvious. We may compare
with U5, where Theodoros put the page filler on the “Seven wonders,” i.e.
impressive building endeavors, in sequence with the texts on two mighty
contemporary cities, Constantinople and Florence. Also in U3 we saw a con-
scious usage of the space left at the end of the unit, as anecdotal extra mate-
rial was put in sequence with similar main texts. Evidently it is not insignifi-
cant for our scribe what material he adds to fill up his pages and quires. The
fact that these micro-texts are often arranged to have rubricated initials and
decorations together with the rest of the texts (as in U3–6) goes to show their
status as acknowledged parts of the book expressing a compositional
whole.55
54
On f. 196v the latter is rendered as © }#}$¨ #\
=
.
55
Another instance of recycling was seen at the end of the preceding unit (U10), where one
stanza of the poem Carmen Paraeneticum reappeared as a page filler, despite having already
been included together with the rest of the stanzas in U9.
96
Quires: Q36–38: [262–269; 270–277; 278–285] 3 quaternions.

Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, also present in U8–11,
U14–15. Watermark: oxhead.
Scribe: Theodoros, using a dark brown ink. Some “titles” and marginal
notes have been added in greyish and light brown ink by a later hand, proba-
bly the same person who wrote the document on f. 87 and the short chronicle
in the margin of f. 283v.
Texts: Nos. 56–66. Four longer excerpts from Theodoret’s Cure of the
Pagan Maladies fill up almost 17 leaves. The next three leaves contain a
number of short texts of various kinds: philosophical commentaries, two
epigrams (AP IX 359–360), a dialectal lexicon. Lists of patriarchates and
bishoprics, of inventors and emperors follow on ff. 281–283. The unit ends
with an astrological/geomantic text which is not complete.
Decoration: Plain initials in light brown ink were all filled in secondarily.
A blank line was allocated for rubricated headlines to Texts 56 (Theodoret)
and 62 (lists patriarchates), but the rubrication was never executed by the
scribe. On f. 283v a zodiac is depicted; astrological signs in the margins of ff.
284v–285r, and on f. 285v a diagram with geomantic “houses.”56
Condition: First recto is relatively clean, cf. U11. Last verso is darkened
and soiled. The moisture stains in upper margin and at the spine look similar
to the ones in U11, but differ slightly from U13. Trimming has affected
some of the marginal notes. Probably at least one quire is missing at end of
unit.
recto.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: (A) – the last text does
not continue into the ensuing unit, but since the text breaks off incomplete,
we do not know how comprehensive U12 was originally. Nevertheless, there
is still a boundary here in relation to U13, but that conclusion must rely more
on what we can infer from U13 itself; B – last verso soiled.
The relationship between micro-texts

The fact that the unit lacks decorations, titles, and rubricated initials makes it
more difficult to distinguish how Theodoros perceived the relationship be-
tween smaller texts. One can conclude that even though he did not leave
much blank space at the beginning of Text 58, for example, he probably
56
The zodiac and the diagram with geomantic houses are depicted in Chapter 5, pp. 218 and
222.
97
planned to have an author’s name there and perhaps the beginning of the
epigram written in red (now the first half line of AP IX 359 is missing). Oth-
erwise he would not have put “
^
^” above the next epigram (AP IX
360). Texts 59–60 are also problematical: in contents Text 60 looks like an
amplification of Text 59, and thus it is not clear whether they should be
treated as one or two items. Furthermore, Text 60 seems to be construed
from a number of short excerpts added one after another. But one cannot say
whether Theodoros picked this and that from different sources, or the
“whole” text was borrowed from a model manuscript.
If we compare with the rubrication in U3, we see that Theodoros often
needs less than an inch of a line to fit in a small title or subtitle. We can thus
assume that such aid was to be added as a means of orientation for the
reader. However, large initials which have been inserted secondarily must
not be trusted as guidance in these matters. As an example we may choose
the initial at the top of f. 279v: it would be easy to infer from the large initial
that a new text starts right there. One would then treat the last line of f. 279r
as a page filler with no relation to what follows on the next page. But that is
not the case: the large initial is quite uncalled for since the text definitely
bridges the recto and verso pages.57

Paper: The paper does not resemble what we find in other units in Gr 8.
No watermark visible in Q39, but the somewhat coarse quality equals the
paper of Q40 where we can see the spikes of a crown.
Justification: 103 x 70–75 mm on ff. 286–298; 108 x 70–75 mm on ff.
299–301r; 110 x 75 mm on f. 301v. Q39: 23–26 lines, Q40: 22–31 lines to
the page.
Scribe: Theodoros, using dark brown ink. Densely filled pages with little
space left for outer margin now due to trimming. The lines are sloping
downwards to the right on most recto pages.
Texts: Nos. 67–72. A selection of letters by Basil the Great, Libanios, and
Gregory of Nazianzos, two excerpts (speeches) from Josephus’ The Jewish
War, and a treatise/letter on astronomy by Nikephoros Gregoras.
Decoration: On f. 286r a strapwork knot in upper margin and a large or-
namented initial, 3 lines in height; the shade of ink is not inconsistent with
57
The reader who added the initials seems to have assumed that f. 279v rendered the begin-
ning of a lexicon starting on alpha, thence the large and decorated alpha wrongly inserted for
delta (“ ” instead of <> ). Also the third word on the page got an initial alpha
instead of the phi that was required (“” instead of <}>). See also Appendix 1, p. 293.
98
Theodoros’ text on the same page, but it is still difficult to assess whether the
decorations are primary (by Theodoros) or not. Blank spaces left for inser-
tion of initials were later filled with plain ones partly in brownish-black,
partly in light brown ink. The fairly sized breathings and accents set out in
the margin by Theodoros (e.g. on f. 293v) indicate that he planned to have
larger initials also at the beginning of each of the letters. As for the titles and
subsidiary titles: though the lines are thinner Theodoros could still have put
them in together with the primary layer. The variation can be explained by a
different slanting of the pen.
Condition: Soiled first recto and last verso. Damp stains which do not re-
semble the ones in Q38 (U12). Cropped leaves, marginal notes partly lost.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – quire boundary and
text boundary coincide; B – first recto is darker, more soiled and worn than
the rest of the leaves; H – plausibly the size of the leaves was different in
this unit, since the writing area leaves almost no room for an outer margin in
its cropped state; J – different paper/watermark; L – different mise-en-page;
M – different style of decoration; O – change in textual contents.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – quire boundary and
text boundary coincide; B – last verso soiled and worn; E – script com-
pressed to make the text fit, or rather: the writing area is very well planned,
so as to gently fit the texts into the quire.
A unit sloppily written or not?

At first sight it may seem that U13 is less carefully executed than the rest of
Gr 8. The number of lines per page varies, the pages are very densely writ-
ten, and the nib of Theodoros’ pen is less sharp than usual. The fact that the
titles and marginal entries were executed in black ink and not in red—as they
are in U3 for example—reinforces the picture of U13 being, if not perfuncto-
rily, so at least less lavishly copied. Another detail which adds to the impres-
sion of a more trivial copying is the narrow outer margin. Nor is the balanc-
ing of the page and the marginal space that we see in other parts of the book
present here. But this could also be the result of trimming: it seems most
likely that the leaves of U13 were originally of a larger size than those of
other units in Gr 8.
At a closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent that the planning of
these leaves was just as professional and premeditated as ever. Take, for
example, the page with the fewest lines, f. 294v: by writing only 22 lines
Theodoros was able to end Basil’s letter at precisely the last line of the page,
beginning a new letter at the top of f. 295r. In a corresponding case on
f. 292v–293r the subtitle is put at the bottom of the preceding page while the
letter itself starts on the first line of the next page: that way Theodoros had
the opportunity to plan a large initial at the top of the page. On the other
hand Theodoros respects his mise-en-page higher than the urge to squeeze in
99
each letter on its own page: he could, for example, have chosen to add a line
at the bottom of f. 295r to fit the letter in. But since that would have burst the
justification measurements, he had to do without it. A tricky parallel is pre-
sent at the transition from recto to verso of f. 296: Theodoros puts the subti-
tle in the upper margin of the verso page despite the fact that the first line on
the verso actually belongs to the end of the preceding letter, the new letter
starting on line two. The illusion is that he succeeds in starting out with a
new text at the top of this verso page also.
The slight increase in number of lines in Q40 seems well-arranged too
(starting out with ca. 25 lines per page and ending with the suite 31/29/29
/28/28/28). From the bottom of f. 298v (Texts 71–72) Theodoros combines
the larger number of lines per page with a further condensation of words on
each line. These last six pages must have been meticulously calculated, since
he manages to stick to his mise-en-page of 28 lines per page all through the
last three pages and nevertheless end his last text exactly at the bottom of
f. 301v. The conclusion must be that a cursory judgment on scribal work
based on what the pages superficially look like may be fallacious. If, on the
contrary, we inspect the copying procedure more closely and try to follow
the steps a scribe has taken—reading his mind, so to speak—this may well
lead us to a revised view on these matters.
Quires: Q41: [302–307] quaternion minus 6th and 7th leaves, which have
been cut out (stubs remain).
Paper: Same paper as in the main part of U2, also present in U8–9, U11–
12, and U15. Watermark: oxhead.
Scribe: Theodoros, using good black ink. By other hands: owner’s marks,
computations, and notes on otherwise blank pages (ff. 305v–307v).
Texts: Nos. 73–75. <Leo VI>, Canticum Compunctionis, i.e. an alpha-
betical anacreontic poem on the Last Judgement, and another anonymously
transmitted poem of similar structure, with the incipit |>
#=%. The author of the latter is Constantine of Sicily. Pen trials and
notes.
Decoration: Two lines left blank on f. 302r for rubricated title and per-
haps a headpiece; ditto on f. 303v. The void spaces left for rubricated initials
were later filled in with small plain ones in greyish-beige ink.
Condition: Moisture damage the same as in neighboring quires. Only
slightly more soiled on first recto and last verso.
100

recto; D – leaves cut out from latter half of the quire; J – different paper than
in U13; L – different mise-en-page.
Demarcation traits in relation to ensuing unit: A – main texts end al-
ready on f. 305r; F – ff. 305v–307v left blank by main scribe; G – owners’
notes and scribbles added on previously blank pages.
The notes and scribblings in U14

Of the scribbled entries that we find on the otherwise blank pages in this
unit, one is by Theodoros himself, at the top of f. 306v: +
$ <
Ê_( ) @
()
Ä=[...]. “Whom have I in heaven,
and beside You whom would I <desire upon earth>?” This is a verse from
the Septuagint, Ps. 72: 25. The entry is in the same black ink that Theodoros
has used for the rest of the texts, but it starts in the middle of the upper mar-
gin and it does not seem as if he planned to complete the text.
The rest of the notes are by at least two different hands. One, rather flu-
ent, on f. 305v, perhaps the same hand as we see traces of in several units
(the longest entry being the document on f. 87). Here it reads:
+ =( >)
>
_=+ + (¬
) =\¨
$% ·## Ë
This we may identify as a short poem in dodecasyllabic verse by Manuel

Philes, the second line of which runs
$ ·## > ¿
$;,
i.e. Carmina 1. 5. The next line on f. 305v may perhaps be by the same hand:
+ Ï
=% Ð
.
In stumbling strokes of the pen an owner of the book has declared his and
his children’s right to the book. On f. 305v it reads:
+
}"% () < # () +

""#
+

_

Then, on f. 307r, the whole message:
101
+
(
)?

? . Here we are thus given the name of one
of the many owners and readers of this book: the priest Kaloiannis Antio-
chos who was protopapas in “Palea.”58 From the position of the entry on f.
305v, where the owner’s notice follows upon the more fluent lines (the
Manuel Philes excerpt), we may infer that this Kaloiannis was a later owner
of the book than the person who wrote the document on f. 87.59 This means
that he must have owned Gr 8 some time between 1547 and the early 1570s.
Unfortunately nothing else is known about this man and his children.60
On f. 306v this Kaloiannis has put another few words: ²(
)

<>, i.e. “Christ has risen from the dead.”
The rest of the notes on f. 306v and 307r are computations:
F. 307v is blank except for the phrase { }\=, which has
been copied from the beginning of U15, f. 308r (Ps. 31).
58
During the period of Venetocracy the ecclesiastic office of protopapas was common in
Crete and in the Heptanesa (Ionian Islands). Second to the bishop in rank, the protopapas
functioned as an intermediate between the authorities and the Greek population (BAGIAKAKOS
1959, 223).
59
An even more unambiguous sequence is the “repetition” of pen trials on f. 328r; cf. U16,
below.
60
The unskilled writing of this priest should not be taken as a sign of illiteracy or incapacity
to appreciate the contents of the book. The abilities to read and write were not as closely
coupled then as they are today. Cf. GREEN 1994, 9.
102

12, and U14. Watermark: oxhead.
Justification: 103 x 70 mm, 9 + 9 lines of Latin and supralinear Greek
(writing area of f. 316 is 110 x 70 mm; on ff. 320–323 ca. 110–120 mm in
height, length of lines varying).
Scribe: Greek text in Theodoros’ hand, Latin text by co-scribe B; see dis-
cussion infra.
Texts: Nos. 76–83. Ps. 32 (=LXX, Ps. 31) Beati quorum remissae sunt /
°Ñ { }Ò= Á Ó; Ps. 38 (=LXX, Ps. 37) Domine ne in
furore tuo / Ô , ¤
Î =Î @#Ò<Õ ; and Ps. 51 (=LXX, Ps. 50)
Miserere mei Deus / #Ò× , ~ ×; Ausonius’ poem De institutione
viri boni; “Ë <+” (in a later hand); liturgical texts (Ave Maria, Pater
Noster, Credo); Ps. 6 Domine ne in furore tuo / Ô , ¤
Î =Î
@#Ò<Õ ;61 letter headings. Pen trials and notes on last leaf (among them
the initial lines of an arithmetic problem, inc. ¬#
).62
Decoration: Plain initials in the Latin text executed in the same black ink
as the rest of the script. One initial missing—supposed to be rubricated?—at
beginning of Text 77.
Condition: Unit badly water damaged. First recto and last verso soiled. A
rip in upper margin of f. 312.
recto; B – first recto soiled; K – different handwriting; L – writing area dif-
fers slightly from U14, but concords with many of the other units in Gr 8; M
– plain initials in black filled in together with the primary layer; O – change
in contents.
end coincide; B – last verso soiled; F – space left open at end of quire; G –
alphabets and other notes added on the formerly blank leaf at the end.
The scribes of U15

U15 is bilingual. One of the texts, De institutione viri boni, is written solely
in Latin, while the others are in Latin but have a translation into Greek above
each line. The Latin, which is written in a humanist hand, is very neat and
professional. I have earlier suggested that the hand might be Janus Lascaris’
(at a conference in Hamburg, 1999), but fear that this question has to be left
in suspense. The Greek text is—judging from orthography and the flow the
61
Incidentally, the incipits of Ps. 38 and Ps. 6 are identical.
62
The arithmetic note is discussed in connection with U16, below.
103
Greek text—written by an indigenous Greek speaker, not by someone just

starting to learn a new language. This contradicts Nigel Wilson’s supposition
that the Greek text could have been written by a young Pietro Bembo (1470–
1547).63 After a meticulous comparison of letter forms, ligatures, and other
characteristics, my conclusion is that also in these quires the Greek is in
Theodoros’ hand. The script looks more relaxed, almost heedless; without
doubt this was written for personal use. Since the translation was supposed
to accompany the Latin words closely, the Greek text became intermittently
stretched out and compressed and is not always easily deciphered. Even if
the identification of the scribes is not unequivocal, there is another detail
which does point to Theodoros as designer of U15: the measurements of the
writing area coincide with the justification that Theodoros uses for most of
his other units in Gr 8.
On account of the appearance of the Greek text, this unit does not seem to
be a professional copy. To use the Psalter and other well-known texts, like
prayers, was the common way to learn languages, utilized all over Europe
during the Middle Ages. But would Theodoros, obviously a well-educated
man, really have needed such help with his Latin? It seems unlikely, I think,
though it may, of course, have been prepared for somebody close to him or
for a pupil. Another possible function of the unit may have been as a model
for the practice of writing Latin. The humanist style of writing was still
novel at this time, so even a professional scribe like Theodoros may have
needed to learn it from another expert. The letter headings (Text 81) are the
kind of thing that would be helpful for an immigrant just starting out in Italy,
someone who needed to find his way among patrons and authorities. It is
intriguing to imagine that this could apply to Theodoros himself, leaving
Kyzikos or Constantinople for the West, but there is no real evidence to as-
sociate the use of the text with him personally. For now we can only specu-
late around these matters.64
The quire boundary at Q42–43

There is a blank space at the end of not only Q43 but also of Q42, i.e. in the
middle of U15. The blank space following upon the purely Latin text on f.
315v was later used for the anonymous Text 78 about “water and earth,”
added in Greek by the same person who used f. 87 and the margin of f. 283v
for extra texts (U2 and U12). As criteria F and G this should make us aware
of a possible boundary here. Also criterion A, coinciding text and quire
boundaries, is applicable in this place. But this is not enough, the contents
and appearance of the two bilingual quires link them closely together. The
63
That Bembo could have been the scribe was suggested by Nigel Wilson on his visit to
Uppsala University Library in 1998.
64
See also the discussion of Text 81 in Chapter 5.
104
writing area of Q43 is admittedly slightly larger, but it still has 9 + 9 lines to
the page, and the conclusion must be that the boundary at f. 315 is a subordi-
nate one inside the unit.
In the photo, below, we see first the hand of the Latin co-scribe (latter half
of Ausonius’ poem), then the secondary layer (the micro-text “Ë
<\”), and last a third layer, someone trying to copy both the last line of the
Latin and the initial words of the micro-text).
F. 315v (original size). Co-scribe B, writing in Latin. Later notes below.
105

Paper: Fragment of a watermark on ff. 324 and 331, probably the cord
and tassel from a hat.
Justification: 96 x 60–63 mm, ca. 20 lines per page.
Scribe: Theodoros. Black ink except for secondary initials in greyish
brown.
Texts: Nos. 84–87. Mathematics in two sections with blank pages
in-between. Notes and pen trials added in blank spaces. On f. 326v in upper
margin a date: the trimming of the leaf makes the interpretation ambiguous,
but presumably it reads } # = (July 9 1566).
Decoration: No titles. The initials, 1–2 lines in height, are secondary.
Condition: This unit is incomplete: on first recto, f. 324r, we get thrown
right into the middle of a mathematical problem. Also at the end of the unit
the mathematical problem lacks its solution, despite the fact that there is
blank space left unused. Water damage mostly in upper and inner margins;
some wax stains. Outer pages moderately soiled.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: B – quire(s) missing at
beginning of unit; J – different paper/watermark; L – different mise-en-
page; O – change in contents.65
recto, but is incomplete; F – space left open after last text; G – scribbles
added on last verso.
Minor additions of various kinds

Despite the trimming, there are some traces left on f. 327r of a prayer for-
mula in Theodoros’ hand: + Ø() "=.. .. . This does put a question
mark on one of the criteria for assessing codicological units, as we have
them in the list on p. 61. U16, however, is not very regular with its blank
pages in the middle and the texts split up into different parts. Perhaps it was
copied in different phases or from an incomplete model. Therefore, I tenta-
tively keep prayer formulae as a criterion of unit breaks.
On f. 328r there are some pen trials which closely resemble the ones on f.
87v (U2): %
^ #^ ^
^ # ¨
\#
%
= . Right below someone awkwardly tried to copy the same phrase
( %
). These inelegant blots of ink are, however, an impor-
tant clue in establishing the sequence of owners. The latter hand is presuma-
bly Kaloiannis’, the protopapas who put his owner’s mark on f. 307r. The
65
The change in contents relates to the main texts of the previous unit. There is in fact a small
mathematical excerpt on the last verso of U15, but that issue is dealt with separately (see next
page).
106
sequence of these pen trials proves that the book came into his hands after
and not before 1546.
Further traces of the “documentary” hand follow on 328v. This passage,
too, was copied below by yet another reader:66
+
# Ù# ¬
\ ¬_() }% #\<

_¬

()¨ · =

#= ¬
\ <

¬ $%
\< #().
A ladle (glutton) pulled an animal up the tree incessantly saying to the archi-
mandrite: if you want, father, come down from the tree, so that humbly I may
honor your big cowl.
We see the same contrast between the trained hand and the more halting one
on f. 329r, where the following saying is written twice:
+ } }$# ~ _$ # "# ¨

> ’ < % Ú %v
Û} } < :–
+ } }# % _ # "# ¨

< % }
Greet a prudent friend as a pocket full of gold; as for the stupid one, flee him
as were he an evil serpent.
A note on the orthography of the second entry: it is obvious that whoever

wrote this did it on the basis of the pronunciation instead of giving heed to
the exact letters in the model. The second and less able scribe has thus
switched eta/iota and omicron/omega as he pleased. Apparently he also had
some trouble deciphering ligatures (like the superscript omega in %).
The mathematical note at the end of the preceding unit

An arithmetic problem, or at least the first few lines of it, was added by a
reader on f. 323v, i.e. on the last verso of U15:
¬#
¨ #¬= ~ Ü <
¤ \ ~ ¡
\
~ ·#(#) . @<Ë + _% <. \
As we have seen above, it is common to find lines from the original texts (or
from later entries) copied once more, whether it was done as an exercise in
writing or just to try out the pen and ink. This does not seem to be the case
with the example of the three mills, above, because that problem is not part
of the mathematical texts which follow (Texts 84 and 86). But here it may be
illuminating to turn to the other manuscript in Theodoros’ hand, Parisinus
66
I am grateful to Dr. John Burke for improving my understanding of this micro-text.
107
gr. 3045, which also contains a text on arithmetic. On ff. 173r–192r there is a
text of precisely the same character as Texts 84 and 86 in Gr 8, in fact, sev-
eral examples are identical (or just slightly varied in wording). Among the
mathematical problems in the Paris manuscript one also finds the one pre-
sented here above as an extra, as something a reader may have added.67 If
Theodoros included this problem in another codex, it is not farfetched to
imagine that it may have been included in the mathematical text of Gr 8 too,
namely, in the quire which apparently is missing at the outset of U16. Once
again, we find how important it is to observe the micro-texts and the later
insertions in a manuscript, and not only the larger texts.
Quires: Q45: [332–336] ternion from which the last leaf has been cut out.
12, U14–15. The fragment of a watermark present on f. 332 looks like two
thongs of a star.
Justification: 108 x 67 mm, 42–49 lines per page.
Scribe: Theodoros has here crammed an extreme mass of text into each
page.
Texts: No. 88a–b, Life of Aesop and 58 fables by Aesop. Text incomplete
at end.
Decoration: One large and ornamented initial, 5 lines in height. Small but
elegant initials at the beginning of each fable. All initials are black with tiny
dots of gold attached.
Condition: Severely damaged by singeing and water. A couple of holes
burnt also in text area, mainly on last leaf. The text breaks off in the middle
of a sentence on f. 336v.
Demarcation traits in relation to previous unit: A – new text beginning
on first recto; B – different condition altogether due to burn ; C – different
quire construction; J – different paper/watermark; L – different mise-en-
page; M – different style of decoration; O – change in contents and genre.
Aesopian leftovers
Besides being incomplete, due to quire damage and burn, the text transmitted
in this unit is a bit odd. On the first twelve lines of f. 332r we have the very
brief version of Aesop’s life called “Vita III” (ed. Eberhard). Then comes the
first part of fable No. 1. This is interrupted on line 22 by a part of Vita W (ed.
Westermann). Then, on line 13 of f. 332v, we retrieve the second half of
67
In Par. gr. 3045 the problem begins on f. 173v, mid-page.
108
fable No. 1, and the rest of the fables follow in sequence. Possibly Theo-
doros realized that he had made a mistake with the introduction, rewrote it,
and kept the mackle paper himself (=U17). This would explain the gilt ini-
tials, something which would otherwise hardly be found in a personal copy.
In that case, the singeing may be unrelated: it could have happened much
later, for example in connection with the fire at the library of El Escorial.
But there is, of course, also the alternative explanation: that the quire or
booklet which he had prepared got accidentally burnt and he managed to
save only a few pages.
F. 332r (original size). Scribe: Theodoros.
109
The composite with all its units

One codex, seventeen units, around ninety “texts,” i.e., catalog items (if we
count each letter, each poem and excerpts from separate books, we would
end up with a much larger number of texts, more than two hundred alto-
gether. If the sum of all these texts belongs to the complicating factors in
assessing the composite book, there is still one counterweight present: one
(1) main scribe, Theodoros. Gr 8 is not a mere recueil factice, it has a creator
who is sensible to his task. In this chapter I have drawn attention to a number
of specific instances where the conscious work of this scribe has made an
impact. He is very professional in the planning and execution of his work, he
fits the texts into the quires with meticulous organization of the amount of
text put into each page. He has apparently rubricated and decorated some of
the units himself, but in most units the last finish is wanting. The fact that the
book was left in this state, lacking headings and red initials, indicates that it
never made it as a commercial product, or that it was not even intended as
such.
Moreover, I have suggested that mindful planning is to be detected in the
mise-en-recueil. In many cases Theodoros has made sure to gather texts of
similar character into the same unit, and even taken heed to adjust the page
fillers to the preceding subject matter. I will come back to this aspect of tex-
tual contents in the next chapter.
There are also connections between units. One factor is the writing mate-
rial: in eight of the seventeen units (or in 22 quires out of 45) we find the
paper carrying the oxhead watermark. These units are thus presumably also
connected when it comes to the time of production. That they are scattered
throughout the codex instead of having been set together as a group, may
suggest that Theodoros sorted the booklets according to contents. At least it
was not a question of just unthinkingly piling the texts on to each other until
he had enough booklets to bind together.
The importance of structural analysis

There is more to say about the whole composite and the relation of all the
units within, but I will pick that thread up at the end of the next chapter.
Here I would like to return to the subject of provenance and Rudberg’s sug-
gestion that Gr 8 may have originated from Constantinople (cf. p. 24). He
put this forward after having investigated the manuscript tradition of the
letters by Basil the Great. In the stemmatic grouping of manuscripts, he es-
tablished a close connection between Gr 8 and Parisinus graecus 2991A
(from 1419).68 Rudberg also referred to Richard Foerster, who had made the
68
He states that Par. gr. 2991A and Gr 8 “sont en relation particulièrement étroite. [...] Pour
l’essentiel les contenus de ces deux mss s’accordaient, et une collation ultérieure a confirmé
plainement la relation qui les unit.” (RUDBERG 1953, 173).
110
same observation regarding Libanios’ letters.69 Since the Parisinus 2991A

was known to have been made in Constantinople, he assumed that this would
be the case also for Gr 8.70 However, I have checked on the texts which these
two manuscripts have in common, and several convey a different picture
than do the passages from Basil and Libanios. The texts that would allegedly
be identical in both manuscripts are the following (I have divided them into
pros and cons in relation to Rudberg’s theory):
Pros Text 43 Simokates’ letters: the two MSS belong to the same group
(“familia a” in Zanetto’s edition; my collation of Gr 8). Par.
gr. 2991A (P) holds 80 of 81 letters, Gr 8 only 20.
Text 45 List of patriarchs/kings: a longer narrative in P in certain pas-
sages (on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Persians, the Romans),
but otherwise rather similar. Whereas Gr 8 ends with Konstas,
P goes on to Michael Komnenos.
Texts Letters by Basil and Libanios: P and Gr 8 belong to the same
67–70 group of MSS according to Rudberg and Foerster
Text 71 Both MSS contain the same two excerpts from Josephus’ The
Jewish War (P has further Josephus excerpts).
Uncertain Text 44 The Decalogue: included in both MSS, but would a profes-
sional scribe really need a model for it?
Text 72 A large lacuna in P, amounting to 34 lines in Gr 8, shows that
P could not have been the model for Gr 8 for Nikephoros
Gregoras’ letter unless a leaf from P was lost at a later stage.
Cons Text 3 The selection of Aesopian fables is completely different.

Text 5 Engelbert Drerup’s collation does not indicate a notably close
relation between Gr 8 and P.71
Text 34 On the eight capital sins, but not at all the same text.
Text 59 Seven Sages, but not the same persons, different order and
partly different wording (P: Kleoboulos, Pittakos, Solon, Bias,
Thales, Menander; Gr 8: Bias, Thales, Kleoboulos, Pittakos,
69
Foerster writes about Gr 8 that tantopere conspirat, ut si non ex eo descriptus, certo ex
eodem exemplari repetendus sit (see RUDBERG, loc. cit.).
70
Jean Darrouzès holds another view on the origin of Par. gr. 2991A, suggesting that it came
from the Peloponnese and ended up in a monastery in Chalkidiki, the St. Anastasia Pharma-
kolytria (DARROUZÈS 1954, 54; for this monastery see GLABINAS 1983; for the homonymous
monastery in Constantinople, see JANIN 1969, 26).
71
Cf. DRERUP 1906, lx-lxii. The recent Isocrates edition by Basil Mandilaras (2003) contrib-
utes no further information on these two manuscripts.
111
Perianthos, Chilon, and Solon).

Text 65 Lists of emperors, but not at all the same wording. P has a
much more comprehensive text.
The conclusion drawn from this sketch must be that there are definite simi-
larities between the two books, but not to the extent that Rudberg suggested.
The crucial point is that the match exists for merely two codicological units
in Gr 8: U9 and U13.72 On the other hand, these manifest correspondences
shed light on the two “uncertain” texts in the presentation above: the Deca-
logue, Text 44, probably was part of the parcel which ended up in U9, and in
the case of Text 72 (in U13), one may assume that the Paris manuscript later
lost one leaf.73 Thus a reasonable modification of Rudberg’s hypothesis is
that Theodoros came across Par. gr. 2991A (alternatively a shared model or
an intermediate copy), perhaps on the Peloponnese but there is no proof of
that. Constantinople seems a less probable alternative, considering the politi-
cal situation after 1453. It also means that the two manuscripts have only a
minor share of texts in common: nine texts or ca. 40 folia in Gr 8. This is not
much if we look at the respective size of the codices (336 ff. in Gr 8; 495 ff.
in Par. gr. 2991A). A lesson to learn from this comparison is that one should
not underestimate the importance of a thorough structural analysis. In com-
bination with the philological scrutiny of textual relationships this can pro-
vide us with more accurate results when it comes to the linking of manu-
scripts.
The final design

The paper in U13 is of a kind that does not reveal any relation to other
units in Gr 8, and it is not datable on the basis of watermarks. In U9, how-
ever, Theodoros starts out with one kind of paper (probably the same as we
have in U7, watermark anchor) and continues with the paper carrying ox-
head watermarks. Since Text 43, Simokates’ letters, runs into that quire as
well, we may now deduce that the production time for U9 (and thus also
U13) should be set around the same period as U2, U8, U10–12, and U14–15
were made.74 U3–6 stand apart in paper and in decoration. U16 and U17 are
72
For U13 the match is exceptionally fine, since the texts appear together and in the same
order also in Par. gr. 2991A. This is not the case with the Parisinus texts corresponding to
Texts 43–45. If these texts were indeed copied from Par. gr. 2991A, then Theodoros must
have picked them out here and there in the model manuscript. In that case he was also the one
who made the active choice to heavily abridge the list of kings and select only a fourth of the
Simokates letters.
73
Since I have only consulted Par. gr. 2991A in a microfilm copy, I cannot confirm what the
quires look like.
74
This assumption is based upon a direct copying of Gr 8 from Par. gr. 2991A. Further copies
in-between would obscure the conjecture.
112
also loners, having little in common with the other units. Thus one may
schematically reconstruct Gr 8 to consist of the following distinctive parts:
1. Unit providing the table of contents; later addition (U1).

2. Units presumably created some time around 1481; headings and decora-
tions added only occasionally (U2, U7–15).
3. Units perfected to an extent which may point to vending intentions; not
dated (U3–6).
4. Unit in a very preliminary state; blank pages in the middle of the text
suggest that the scribe may have wished to add more examples to the
mathematical text; no date (U16).
5. Unit which was definitely prepared for a client, if we are to judge from
the gilt decorations on initials; probably a quire discarded due to faulty
copying or damage; no date (U17).
One may now speculate around the reasons for the present sequence of units.
In my opinion, the following factors ought to be considered (I now leave U1
aside): U2 at the outset because it is the longest text; U3–6 follow because of
their degree of finish and elegance and perhaps due to similar contents in U2
and U3; U7 as a sequel due to similarity with U6 in contents; U8 probably
misplaced after switching places with U9; U9 was, I believe, written in se-
quence with U7. The sequence from the last quire of U9 with U8 and U10–
15 to follow may have been the actual production sequence, but of course a
swap here and there would not make much difference, the contents being of
a similar kind. U13 stands out (different paper, different mise-en-page) but,
as we saw above, it was probably produced during the same working period.
In a way, U15 is even more distinct with its bilingual design and Theodoros’
more casual handwriting. U16 and U17, finally, are the least presentable
units, the one unfinished, the other in a pitiful state. Even so, the texts were
obviously worth keeping. The hierarchy is clear though: Theodoros put the
longer texts and the more elaborate units first and the more personal and
unassuming units at the end of the codex.
113
MAKING SENSE OF A ONE-VOLUME
LIBRARY
4 The contents of Gr 8
How to assort and categorize (and to what end)

What was split up unit by unit in the previous chapter we will now put to-
gether again, as we look at the contents of the whole volume and examine
what we may learn from the total combination of texts in Gr 8. The aim is to
trace whether there is an underlying pattern, a master plan behind the whole
volume or if it is more accurate to presuppose the co-existence of several
ambitions in the material. To facilitate the investigation, our first concern is
to assort the texts according to principles which allow a better overview.
When trying to assess the contents of a miscellany, the longer and often
well-known texts are usually less of a problem. It is the small, unassuming
excerpts and micro-texts which complicate matters. This is why I have de-
cided to account for all texts irrespective of their size. This gives us an op-
portunity to find connections between textual themes both inside the units
and when the texts stand further apart in the codex. At the end of the chapter
I will take the discussion back to the codicological units and to the design of
the whole book. I will also evaluate the scribe Theodoros’ creative contribu-
tion in planning the entirety of the book.
Categorizations are never uncomplicated, since a text may be perceived
and used in many different ways by different readers at different times: one
may feel that the arrangement of texts into genre, theme, or use, narrows the
field of possible interpretations. On the other hand, the process of compari-
son and interpretation of different aspects is an opportunity for us to recon-
sider old truths and suppositions about Byzantine texts. In the larger hand-
books of Byzantine literature, the genres have usually been at the forefront
as sorting criterium; literary (or not so literary) works were put into secular
and theological compartments, and the works in high style were separated
from the so-called Volksliteratur.1 Alexander Kazhdan chose another ap-
proach in his literary history, focusing on authorship instead of genre.2 This
is a wholesome complement to the genre-based taxonomy, since a single
author may well have been prolific in several genres and more than one level
of style and language. It is nonetheless important that we also respect
1
So Krumbacher, Hunger, and Beck, among others. Important contributions to the discussion
of genres, authorship, and other aspects of vital interest in the quest for a new history of Byz-
antine literature, are collected in ODORICO & AGAPITOS 2002.
2
KAZHDAN 1999.
anonymous and fluid texts no less than the ones authored by famous person-
ages.
The reception and use of the texts is another aspect that is often neglected
in the compartmentalization according to genres and styles. Just as the con-
cept of a genre changes with every addition of new text, the reception of the
texts is never static. With Byzantine books it is sometimes of lesser concern
whether a work was originally written in antiquity, in Early-, Middle-, or
Late Byzantine times: the fact that these texts are now bound in the same
volume regardless of origin makes them “new” in a way, since the context is
more or less unique for each codex. It may therefore help to be a bit squint-
eyed when studying Byzantine books, keeping one eye on the original set-
ting of the texts and one at the receiving end, the present context. This pro-
vides us with means to pursue literary analysis in combination with an as-
sessment of social and cultural aspects of the Byzantine books which trans-
mit the texts.
Categories of texts in Gr 8
A substantial number of textual types or genres are represented in Gr 8, de-
pending on how you subdivide and sort them, and it is a challenge to try to
find an optimal way of introducing them to the reader. To determine the
predominance of any group over another, one would have to take into ac-
count both quantity (number of folios, number of texts) and distribution (oc-
currence in several units). In order to prevent confusion, splitting the
reader’s vision unduly by too many small categories, I have decided to bring
in all the texts under four—to my mind—fundamental headings: narrative
texts, rhetorical texts, philosophical-theological texts, and practical texts.
Even though this still implies certain overlappings and borderline cases, it
has the advantage of elucidating how the texts may have been used and ap-
preciated by the readers (including, of course, the scribe Theodoros himself).
Keeping in mind that the function of texts necessarily varies from person to
person and from time to time, I admit that my arrangement is tentative. This
is why I ask the reader of my book to bear in mind that the arrangement of
the texts here is momentary, determined by the needs at hand, and is open to
rearrangement by anyone who would like to consider these texts from a dif-
ferent perspective.
The categories are not uniform in scope: there is an asymmetry in the use
of the traditional notion of genre as opposed to subject matter, structure,
mode, and use.3 The category of “narrative texts” is not commensurable to
the category of “rhetorical texts.” In the first case we are dealing with a
mode of expression which is present in many different genres; while the
3
On concepts of genre, see for example FOWLER 1982, 37–53.
118
Narrative texts
second category is based on a supposition of why or in what setting the texts

were produced, and, admittedly, some of these texts incorporate the narrative
mode as well. The third category, the philosophical and theological texts, is
obviously fashioned from the perspective of subject matter, and the fourth is
based on the practical character of much of its contents and/or form. This co-
positioning of different motives may seem unjudicious. But however we do
this, there will still be oversimplifications to consider. The aim of this proce-
dure is to let the groups of texts illuminate each other, and, at best, to arrive
at a synthetical view at the end of the chapter, when we consider issues like
the raison(s) d'être for the book.
I will keep the focus rather strictly on Gr 8 and only occasionally discuss
other manuscripts, either to illustrate the overall transmission of a certain
text or to compare the situation in Gr 8 with manuscripts that may or may
not be related to ours. Unless I have reason to call attention to a divergence
in readings, attribution, and so forth, I will not mention any data on specific
editions of the texts.4 Following the subtitles I indicate which Gr 8 texts are
treated in each section. If the number is given within parenthesis, this means
that the text is mentioned there but treated more thoroughly in another sec-
tion.
Narrative texts
Narrative texts should here be understood not as a genre, but rather as a
mode of representation: the desire to “tell a story,” to convey things which
have happened (more rarely, which will happen), either in real life or in a
person’s imagination.5 This mode of describing and retelling events can
permeate a work more or less completely. The narrative mode decides the
form altogether in cases when the presentation of the story, or sequence of
connected events, is the intended end result. The alternative situation, when
the author uses narrative devices in a text which has as its main purpose
something else above and beyond the (mere) story-telling, is likely to be
even more frequent—at least that seems to be the case in Gr 8. The clean-cut
works of story-telling are more easily counted, whereas the number of narra-
tives inside other kinds of texts is considerable.
4
For information on editions of the texts, see Appendix 2.
5
Emmanuel Bourbouhakis and Ingela Nilsson define narrative as “the linguistic representa-
tion of an event or a series of events occuring in the past, regardless of whether that past be
real or fictional” (BOURBOUHAKIS & NILSSON, forthcoming). I am grateful to the authors for
giving me the opportunity to read their contribution in advance. One may add that the linguis-
tic or literary representation is but one possibility: narratives are also present in Byzantine art,
for example in vita icons describing a saint’s life in pictures. A study of the narrative in vita
icons depicting St. Nicholas of Myra is under preparation by Irina Brändén (Uppsala Univer-
sity). On the concept, see also ŠEVÞENKO 1999, 150f.
119
The decidedly narrative genres which we meet with in Byzantine litera-

ture are historiography and hagiography, both of which were held in high
esteem throughout most Byzantine centuries, and the novel, the interest of
which peaked in Komnenian times but also had later advocates in the
Palaiologan romances. Smaller formats with story-telling as the major ingre-
dient are, for example, fables, poems, and gnomical forms like chreiai and
apophthegmata.6 Sometimes these and other miniature narratives are referred
to as progymnasmata, “fore-exercises” from which one learned how to write,
or tell, a story. From their basic role as preparatory excercises in rhetorical
education, they eventually became promoted as literary pieces in themselves.
We also encounter them as building blocks in larger narratives. In Iskra
Gencheva-Mikami’s study of the Notitia Dignitatum it is even suggested that
lists be included among “narrative” forms.7 This raises the question of how
short a narrative can be and still be recognized as such. Is it up to the reader
to decide what is a narrative and what is not? One may at least assume that
the shorter the narrative segment, the more important the reader’s previous
knowledge becomes; he or she must be able to “fill in” the author’s
“blanks.”8
In addition to the more autonomous narrative genres mentioned above, we
often come across stories inserted into other kinds of texts: narrative as a
device in rhetoric, in homiletics, in letters, and in treatises of various kinds,
even in arithmetic. Stories provide good reading material, they stir the read-
ers’ imagination and help their memory. No wonder they have been used for
teaching as well as for preaching, for persuasion and for sheer entertain-
ment.9 When we approach Byzantine texts as strangers—most often reading
them in a language we have toiled to learn as adults and with half a millen-
nium or more in-between their conception and our comprehension—it is all
too easy to forget the joy of reading, the appreciation Byzantine readers must
6
Both chreiai and apophthegmata may be considered anecdotes or maxims. The difference
between them is slight, but the former can be taken to include more of a person’s doings and
the latter a person’s sayings. On these terms, see SEARBY 2007, I, 3–5.
7
These thoughts were presented by Gencheva-Mikami in a paper held at the 14th Conference
of the Australian Association for Byzantine Studies [Byzantine Narrative]. For the abstract,
see http://home.vicnet.net.au/~byzaus/conferences/14th2004/abstracts.html. The Notitia Dig-
nitatum is the adminstrative listing of all major offices in the (Western as well as Eastern)
Roman Empire. In Gr 8 there are several lists which might be said to carry an inherent narra-
tive: the list of the seven wonders (Text 22), lists of Israelitic, Chaldean, Persian and Assyrian
kings (Text 45), lists of patriarchates and metropolises (Text 62); inventors (Text 63);
Palaiologan emperors and Ottoman sultans (Text 65). Some of these texts are also discussed
below, in the section on practical texts.
8
Hayden White discusses how the smallest entry in a chronicle (as for example: “Emperor X
died and his son Y succeeded to the rule”) contains in embryo the elements of a narrative. The
entry serves as a “narreme” since it produces a connection between two events, in fact it is a
narrative in itself (WHITE 1987, 14).
9
On the uses of narrative in different genres of Byzantine literature, see further the articles by
Margaret Mullett, Roger Scott, and Ingela Nilsson in BURKE 2006.
120
Narrative texts
have had of not only linguistic form and rhetorical elegance but also of hu-
mor, irony, exciting subject matter, intriguing development, intertextual
play, et cetera. This is also the reason why I put narrative texts as the first
subgroup in Gr 8: I use the (by necessity) circumstantial and contingent fac-
tor of arranging texts into groups and genres to highlight the fact that many
of the texts in the manuscript incorporate appealing stories, even if they su-
perficially may seem to be very different in genre and kind.
Stephanites and Ichnelates

Text 3
The first text in Gr 8 to qualify in the group of narrative texts is Stephanites
and Ichnelates (Text 3), which also happens to be the longest text in the
whole book. The fact that it furthermore stands at the very beginning of the
book (only the pinakes from El Escorial precede it), gives this text a distinc-
tive weight in the process of assessing what kind of book Gr 8 is, or could
have been appreciated as, at the time of its formation. A codex which was
made up of several texts would in medieval times often be recognized and
labeled by its first major item. Likewise, our codex has the marking
“” on its fore edge, a label which can only refer to the Stephanites
and Ichnelates and is inappropriate for the rest of the texts. Although this
narrative work constitutes a separate codicological unit within the codex, it
should be seen as a vital part of the whole book instead of merely a later
addition to the composite; as we saw in the preceding chapter, the writing
material connects it to several of the other codicological units (the same kind
of paper, with the “oxhead” watermark, is present there as well). It remains
to be shown how this fits in with the rest of the contents.
Stephanites and Ichnelates is not a Byzantine work in origin, but it be-
came one of the more popular narrative works in its Greek translation, just as
it became a success in many other translations and adaptations throughout
the Middle Ages and up until modern times. All the good stories within the
work must have played a major part in this winning recipe. The history of
the work starts with a core of Indian tales from the Pançatantra, itself a fa-
mous piece of wisdom literature which proffers fable stories with the aim of
teaching niti, i.e., policy, social order, and prudence to prospective rulers.10
In the sixth century, Burzây, who was a physician at the Sasanid court of
Khosrow I, put together the work Karrag ud Damanag, drawing on the
Pançatantra but also adding Persian components. The various fables, which
in the Sanskrit versions were relatively autonomous, often combined in a
Chinese box technique, were now knit more closely together through a new,
seemingly autobiographical, frame story about Burzây’s life and religious
10
The Sanskrit original, now lost, was written sometime between the 1st c. BCE and the 5th c.
CE.
121
development and about his voyage to India. This Pahlavã (Middle Persian)
work has not survived, but can be reasonably well reconstructed on the basis
of the Old Syriac and Arabic translations.11
Most of the later translations, including the Greek ones, were directly or
indirectly made from the Arabic version, the Kallah wa-Dimnah. The Ara-
bic editor Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (ca. 720–ca. 756) chose to include yet another
frame story or prologue and four more chapters of fables, two of Indian and
two of unknown origin. In that form, with three prolegomena and fifteen
chapters of fable stories (where the cast ranges from animals to wise men
and travelers), the Kallah wa-Dimnah reached the Byzantine readers. The
Greek title is a kind of folk etymological translation, by which the two jack-
als and leading characters Kalãlah and Dimnah got Greek-sounding names.
The Byzantine transmission of Kallah wa-Dimnah is not altogether
straightforward. According to Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis, the Arabic text
was translated into Byzantine Greek on four occasions.12 The earliest transla-
tion is the least known, since we only have a few folia left of it in a manu-
script which used to belong to the Basilian monastery in Grottaferrata. This
manuscript, New York Pierport Morgan M. 397, also contains a version of
the Aesop Romance, a collection of Aesopian fables, the fables of Babrios
and the Physiologos.13 The next effort of translation was made by Symeon
Seth, a physician from Antioch, who dedicated his work to the emperor
Alexios I Komnenos, a circumstance that would date the work to around
1085.14 It was Symeon Seth who minted the Greek title Stephanites and
Ichnelates. He wrote in a very polished Byzantine koine with the Komnenian
court as his primary audience, and he also endeavored to make his version
comply with the genre expectations of ancient Greek fable epics: he trans-
posed oriental-sounding names and titles into Greek, adapted the storytelling
to the Aesopian tradition and incorporated citations and reminiscences from
classical Greek authors, from the Bible, from patristic and Byzantine litera-
ture.
Though obviously well-suited as a prince’s mirror, Stephanites and Ichne-
lates won an audience outside of court circles as well, and was soon revised
into a little less sophisticated koine. Two translators, working independently
11
For the early stages of the work, see DE BLOIS 1990, 1–11.
12
For an overview of the Greek translations and their relationship to each other, see NIEHOFF-
PANAGIOTIDIS 2003, 34–47.
13
As for the time of translation, the only safe assumption is that a certain period of time must
have passed between the time of the original translation and the time when the Pierpont Mor-
gan manuscript was copied. Elinor Husselman dates the manuscript to between 980 and 1050,
and adds that “[i]t should be noted that the Greek contains several mistakes which cannot well
have been in the original. Therefore the Morgan manuscript cannot be the first copy of the
translation from the Arabic” (HUSSELMAN 1939, 6–7 and 14).
14
The dedication is transmitted in the oldest manuscript, Codex Laurentianus XI 14 (12th c.).
The different recensions and subrecensions of the manuscript transmission have been touched
upon above, p. 75.
122
Narrative texts
of each other, added translations of other parts of the Arabic text, parts
which Symeon Seth had chosen to abridge or exclude. One of these transla-
tions can be traced back to Eugenios of Palermo, if not as translator so at
least as curator for the work, in the late twelfth century; the other translation
was probably produced in the East, since in its least contaminated form it has
survived in a Church Slavonic translation.15 What happened later was that
these two versions were combined so as to form a full translation of the Ara-
bic original, and a closer one at that, since the ambition of Symeon Seth to
“Hellenize” the work was by now absent. This is the kind of full-fledged
story assemblage we meet with in Gr 8.
Stephanites and Ichnelates has been labeled “popular literature” (Volks-
literatur) in the handbooks on Byzantine literature.16 In a more recent hand-
book, however, Jan Olof Rosenqvist presents a more cautious view: he
stresses that the language form and style do not justify categorizing the work
as popular.17 To characterize it as popular literature is certainly problematic,
considering the fact that the story was translated and adapted at court, dedi-
cated to the emperor, and was spread and read mainly in the educated stra-
tum of Byzantine society. It is only in the light of later developments that the
estimation is comprehensible: the fact that these fables got an afterlife in so
many languages and revisions and eventually ended up in many a reading
primer in schools, might have colored our perception of the earlier phases of
reception as well. According to Hélène Condylis-Bassoukos’ investigation of
the manuscript tradition, the Stephanites and Ichnelates is often found in
close connection with other fable collections, with moralizing and philoso-
phical works, with medical works, and with bestiaries. The conclusion she
draws is that the work “se trouve lié tour à tour à des familles de textes dif-
férents; il peut donc être considéré de différentes manières.”18 Even though it
is hard to fathom why “bestiaries” are mentioned separately—as moralizing
fable literature it ought to be well covered by the preceding categories—her
conclusion can nevertheless be seen to correspond with the project of mak-
ing sense of Gr 8 as a book.
15
On the recensions B (the “Eastern” translation) and B (the recensio Eugeniana), see
NIEHOFF-PANAGIOTIDIS 2003, 39–45. In addition to the Church Slavonic translation, the Byz-
antine Stephanites and Ichnelates stood model to one Italian and one Latin version and also to
paraphrases into modern Greek. Theodosios Zygomalas, who was the protonotary of the
patriarchate in Constantinople, produced one of these, in 1584. Another one, from 1721, was
written by the physician Demetrios Prokopios at the request of the Phanariote prince (hospo-
dar) of Walachia, Johannes Nikolaos Alexandros Mavrokordatos (SJÖBERG 1962, 133).
16
BECK 1971, 41–45; MAZAL 1989, 144f.
17
ROSENQVIST 2007, 110f. Rosenqvist’s reference is to Symeon Seth’s version, admittedly the
most polished one; other versions followed, and especially with the sixteenth-century para-
phrases into Modern Greek the Hochsprachlichkeit of the work was no longer an issue.
18
CONDYLIS-BASSOUKOS 1997, xxviii.
123
Further fable stories and fictitious biographies

Texts 7, (8–9), (43), 88
Let us proceed to look at some of the other texts which have something in
common with the Stephanites and Ichnelates. In its present state, Gr 8 dis-
plays another set of fable stories at its very end: the Life of Aesop together
with a collection of Aesopian fables (Text 88). This would, from the point of
view of its contents, seem to give the book a very neat closure. The original
order of the texts in Gr 8 could have been different, though: the earliest ref-
erence to the manuscript in an inventory indicates that the Aesop fables were
placed after the “Epistolae Basilii e aliorum” (Texts 67–72), but before the
lists of patriarchates and metropoles (Text 62 in Gr 8).19
The Life of Aesop has been described as a fictional biography with ele-
ments of the comic-realistic novel, something which would put the work in
the same category as, for example, the Alexander Romance and the Life of
Apollonios from Tyana.20 Composed sometime in the late Hellenistic or early
Imperial period,21 the work mingles oriental influences from The Story of
Ahiqar with ancient Greek legends about “the anti-hero and trickster Aesop,
the prototype of the Cynic sage.”22 In Gr 8, The Life of Aesop is presented in
a very abbreviated version; perhaps one should rather see it as an hypothesis,
since it amounts to less than 150 words.23 If the short version sufficed, one
may assume that the readers were already acquainted with the story and thus
able to recall the more substantial narrative from a few data, or rather argue
that the fables were, after all, the most important part of the narrative, mak-
19
See BEER 1903, xcii (No 160 c I). The inventory description is far from complete in its
account of the items in Gr 8. Therefore it is not unambiguously clear whether one should rely
on it or rather assume that the note on the patriarchates and metropoles was put in lastly, as an
extra piece of information, regardless of its place in the book. There seems to be yet another
alteration of the sequence of texts compared to today’s: in the inventory Text 24 (Plethon’s
Reply to George Scholarios’ defense of Aristotle) is introduced after Text 25 and 26 (the
letters from Bessarion and Nicolas Sagundino), but this sequence, 25–26–24, is physically
impossible, since the three items are written in a sequence inside one and the same quire. If,
nevertheless, we should take the inventory at face value regarding the placement of Text 88
(Aesop), the reason for moving it was most likely due to its condition. Being a small, even
incomplete unit (about half a quire), and badly damaged by singeing at that, it certainly stands
out from the rest of the book. The page layout, jammed with minute script, also makes its
appearance less compatible with the other units, something which could have contributed to
the placement of it at the end of the book.
20
See Grammatiki Karla’s summary of the recent genre discussion around the Life of Aesop
(KARLA 2001, 1–3).
21
The date of composition is still unclear; cf. KARLA 2001, 8, with further references.
22
WEST 2003, 428.
23
This is the text that Albert Eberhard presented as “Vita III” (EBERHARD 1872, 309f.). Ben
Perry calls it a “short preface,” and states that its origin comes from the lost archetype (#) of
manuscripts LFV (Leiden Vulc. 93, 15th c.; Flor. Laur. LVII, 30, 16th c.; Vat. gr. 695, 14–15th
c.). According to Perry, this “#” manuscript was probably written in the first half of the 13th
c., perhaps in Southern Italy or Sicily (PERRY 1933, 214f.). Cf. also PERRY 1952, 212–213,
where the text is placed among the vitae minores under the label “Testimonium 1a.”
124
Narrative texts
ing the frame story second priority.24 In either case, a few brief facts of Ae-
sop’s life remain, together with an introduction to his storytelling, explaining
how the fables are cunningly wrought, precious, useful, and edifying.
After the introductory hypothesis fifty-nine fables follow. They are ar-
ranged alphabetically, from the story of the eagle and the fox (

#å), to the story of the aging lion (#\% <). The last one is in-
complete, breaking off because of the quire damage in U17, and we may
draw the conclusion that originally the sequence was supposed to continue
with more fables, arranged from lambda to the end of the alphabet.25 As I
mentioned in the preceding chapter, there is another incongruity in Text 91:
after the initial Vita III there is a short passage from Vita W, i.e. the so-called
Westermann recension, inserted right in the middle of the first fable.26 This
passage tells about Aesop’s stay at Samos, and how he helped the Samians
in their relation to King Kroisos. He does so not by explicitly telling them or
the king how to act, but by relating parables and fables which they in their
turn have to interpret. Thus another two fables are inserted inside this
passage of the Life: the stories on the war between the wolves and sheep, and
the poor man and the cicada (Aes. Fab. 158 and 298, ed. Hausrath).27 The
intriguing Chinese box technique which characterizes Stephanites and
Ichnelates is present here as well, even if it also happened to be enhanced by
mistake: placing the extract from Vita W inside the story of the eagle and the
fox was probably due to confusion of leaves in a model manuscript some-
where.28
Turning to fables as an ingredient in other kinds of texts, there is reason to
bring in a text in Gr 8 which might easily be overlooked in a quest for narra-
tive texts. Gregory of Nazianzos’ letter to Keleusios (Ep. 114; Text 7) is an
appealing example of the incorporation of a fable:29 on the subject of loquac-
ity and taciturnity Gregory tells the story about the swallows who ridiculed
the swans for not wanting to be around people and not singing except among
themselves. Inside this fable, he includes a very compressed narrative, giving
the whole story of Philomela’s rape by merely mentioning names, places,
and a few keywords:
24
It was apparently not unusual to copy the Aesopian Fables without including the Life: Perry
states that from the 12th c. onwards, “[i]f a scribe decided to include the Life at all, he chose
either the Westermann recension or [...] the brief notice about Aesop ascribed to Aphthonius”
(PERRY 1936, 26). The so-called Vita III is an imitation of the Aphthonian preface (PERRY
1933, 215).
25
The fables, numbered according to Hausrath’s edition, are listed in Appendix 2 (HAUSRATH
& HUNGER 1956 and 1970).
26
Vit. Aes. 93–100 (inc. ©%
> %; expl. ^ <%\

\# ).
27
Cf. HAUSRATH & HUNGER 1970, 185 and 1956, 107f.
28
On the narrative structure of the Life of Aesop at large, see HOLZBERG 1992.
29
In Gr 8 the attribution of the letter is “from Basil the Great to a certain Gregory but not the
Great” (f. 98v–99r). Thus, even if our scribe Theodoros did not read the text as authored by
Gregory of Nazianzos, he at least reckoned it to be by another church father.
125
Pandion, Athens, Tereus, Thrace, the journey, the grief, the violence, the mu-
tilation, the (woven) message, and, on top of it all, Itys and how we became
birds instead of people.
A story as condensed as this would obviously not succeed unless it brought

up very familiar stories or anecdotes. This, however, is quite characteristic of
the literary culture of late antiquity and Byzantium, with its long tradition of
passing on a common treasure of story-telling. This telling and retelling of
stories was a dynamic process, which many Byzantine authors and compila-
tors ventured to refine and excel in. Gregory of Nazianzos’ story is a good
example of such literary adaptation. Gregory not only seizes the opportunity
to remind us of the Philomela story, but he also gives the legend a further
twist, simply by putting it in the mouths/beaks of the swallows: according to
the legend—which every reader would have been aware of—Philomela her-
self was transformed into a silent swallow.30 To the swallows’ accusations
Gregory has the swans give their retort, and as a final point he ends his letter
with the plea that Keleusios stop badgering him about being quiet, since “the
swans will sing when the jackdaws fall silent.”31
Another form of narrative may be found in fictional letters and epistolary
novels. Of these we have some representatives in Gr 8 as well: the suite of
eight letters attributed to Anacharsis (Text 9); three Hippocratean letters out
of the so-called “Persian” epistolary novel (Text 8); a considerable number
of Theophylact Simokates’ letters, also fictitious (Text 43).32 I discuss these
items below within the category of rhetorical texts.
Historical narratives
Texts (20), 21, 42, 49, (51), 64, 71
30
Sophocles made use of the story in his play Tereus (TrGF, IV, 581–595b); it is also retold
by Achilles Tatius in the novel of Leucippe and Cleitophon (Ach. Tat. Leuc. 5.4–5.6). Ovid’s
Latin version in the Metamorphoses (Ov. Met. 6. 424–674) has made a lasting impact on
European literature, not least through reuse of the story by Chaucer, Shakespeare, and others.
31
Paul Gallay’s edition renders the last sentence of the swans’ riposte as a rhetorical question:

@
##$

$ _
<#
% ; The wording of Gr 8 “@

##$
$
,” might be preferable (“and then you turn out being chatterboxes, although
not even eloquent and harmonious”).
32
Whole fables are incorporated also in two of Simokates’ letters (Text 43): in Simoc. Ep. 34
the subject is moderation, %}Ô: why concern ourselves with riches and physical mat-
ter, when our borrowed plumes are stripped off in death? This moral is illustrated with the
story about how the birds once went to Zeus and asked him to give them a king. He ordered
them to wash themselves to reveal their beauty—or lack thereof; the most beautiful would
become king. The jackdaw could not compete, and chose to simulate what nature had refused
him by embellishing himself with feathers not his own, but the owl recognized his own feath-
ers and exposed the fraud (cf. Aes. Fab. 103). A variant tradition of this fable is included in
Stephanites and Ichnelates chapter IV (Of the Owls and the Crows), but here it is the crow
who vilifies the owls, calling them the ugliest and dirtiest of birds. This chapter is included in
126
Narrative texts
There is a certain permeability between forms like letters and prose fiction:
letters are used within fictional narratives (for example in the ancient and
Byzantine novels), just as narrative is used within fictitious (and real) let-
ters.33 This is also the case with historiography, where speeches and letters
are often interwoven in the narrative. Consequently, overlappings are com-
mon between these and other genres. The investigation of a multifaceted
book like Gr 8 becomes a wholesome reminder of the fluid borders between
different kinds of texts. Literature is more compound and intricate than our
attempts at organizing it into the pigeon-holes of construed systems of genre
would allow. As a case in point we may look at the selection of excerpts
from John Tzetzes’ Chiliades (“Thousands”) or Book of Histories (Text
42).34 The short historical or mythological episodes in the Chiliades function
as a commentary to Tzetzes’ own collection of letters; these letters were in
turn addressed to fictitious persons as well as to his contemporaries. Before
Tzetzes was done, the learned commentary had swelled into more than
12.000 lines of political verse, a somewhat impractical format, which did not
help the distribution of this book either in the author’s own time, or later.
What we have here in the form of a commentary is thus a poem, and a his-
tory book, and an etymological handbook, and an antiquarian collection of
this and that and everything else. At the same time there are important sto-
ries transmitted here. To take one example only: in Chil. I, 3, Tzetzes tells us
about Gyges who became king of Lydia, and in just a few lines he manages
to remind us first of the version where the shepherd Gyges found a bronze
horse with a corpse in it; on its finger the corpse had a ring which could ren-
der its master invisible. Gyges used the ring to kill King Kandaules and seize
power.35 Then Tzetzes narrates Herodotos’ version: King Kandaules who had
a very beautiful wife insisted that Gyges see her undress; she noticed this
and gave Gyges the choice of either murdering her husband and taking his
place or being killed himself.36 Not content with reiterating these two ver-
sions, Tzetzes proceeds with an allegorical interpretation of the first version,
thus giving us yet another “renarrativization” of the story.
Two passages drawn from Josephus’ history on the Jewish War are in-
cluded in Gr 8 (Text 71). These are selected so that there is little information
on the historical framework and the situation at large; what the excerptor has
Gr 8, ff. 52v–62. Simoc. Ep. 61 brings in the fable of the ant and the cicada (cf. Aes. Fab.
114). On Theophylact Simokates’ letters in Gr 8, see also below, p. 144.
33
On letters embedded in novels, see ROSENMEYER 2001, 133–168.
34
John Tzetzes (ca. 1110–ca. 1180) was a poet and grammarian who belonged to the group of
professional literati which had connections to the imperial court at Constantinople (as did for
example Constantine Manasses, by whom we also have a text in Gr 8 (Text 38). Among other
tasks, Tzetzes was entrusted with introducing Empress Eirene (Bertha von Sulzbach) to an-
cient Greek literature, and especially to Homer (HUNGER 1978, II, 60). On the literary life in
12th-c. Constantinople, see MULLETT 1984; MAGDALINO 1993, 382–412.
35
This version is given by Plato in The Republic (Pl. R. 359d–360d).
36
Hdt. I, 8–13.
127
bestowed us with are two speeches (BJ 3, 472–484 and 361–382). The first
passage presents a situation where the emperor Titus realizes that the ene-
mies gathering outside the walls of Tarichaeae so outnumber the Roman
army that it ought to be impossible to win. Nonetheless, Titus makes this
exhortatory speech to urge on his subordinates. The other passage is
Josephus’ argument against suicide in a situation of total defeat: Jotapata, the
besieged town which they have defended, has fallen, and Josephus and his
men can now either kill themselves or surrender themselves to the Romans.
The parallel of the recently experienced siege and fall of the Byzantine capi-
tal in 1453 inevitably presents itself. A reminder may, however, be in place:
this last and fatal blow had been preluded by many earlier sieges, several of
which the Byzantines had withstood and some not.37 Thus, the two excerpts
may originally have been selected and combined by reason of other harsh
circumstances. Whether or not the two excerpts are unique for Gr 8 or rather
a common choice from Josephus’ work, this need not prevent our idea of
actualization: even if a prior excerptor may have had another occasion in
mind than the one furthered by Mehmet II, the situation which Theodoros
and his contemporaries had lived through would certainly have made the
message in Josephus’ speeches ever so urgent again.
Two more texts go well together with Josephus’ speeches on a conquered
and ruined city: Manuel Christonymos’ lament on the fall of Constantinople
(Text 20) and Michael Choniates’ elegy on Athens as he saw it in the early
thirteenth century (Text 51). These, however, will be dealt with in the next
section.
Another fifteenth-century text which comments on contemporary circum-
stances is Leonardo Bruni Aretino’s treatise on the constitution of Florence
(Text 21).38 That Bruni chose to write it in Greek was probably brought
about by the occasion of the Council of Ferrara-Florence, where the Byzan-
tine delegation included a significant number of distinguished and learned
men (Emperor John VIII, Patriarch Joseph II, George Gemistos Plethon,
Cardinal Bessarion, Mark Eugenikos, and George Scholarios, to mention the
most prominent). Bruni took the opportunity to present himself and his city
state in the language of the visitors. In 1439 he had just finished his Latin
37
Stephen Turnbull discusses ten major sieges of Constantinople (TURNBULL 2004, 47–57).
Other sources mention as many as twenty-five to thirty; see for example DE LAMARTINE 1857,
107; these figures are probably somewhat inflated, if we consider that six of the twenty-nine
sieges enumerated by Joseph von Hammer took place before 315 CE (HAMMER 1827, 552 and
674–675).
38
Leonardo Bruni Aretino (ca. 1370–1444) was the Chancellor of Florence and an important
promoter of the study of Greek literature in the West through his many translations to Latin of
classical Greek works. As an author, he is perhaps best known for his History of Florence, but
he also contributed to the circulation of Italian poetry through his biographies over Dante,
Petrarch, and Boccacio. Bruni has often been bestowed the epithet of “first modern historian”
(problematized by IANZITI 1997). For a modern edition of The Constitution of Florence, see
MOULAKIS 1986.
128
Narrative texts
translation of Aristotle’s Politics, and the influence of this work (especially

Book Four) is evident in The Constitution of Florence.39 The autograph ver-
sion is not extant, but there are enough copies to suggest that the work had a
considerable dissemination in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One of
the manuscripts has marginal notes and corrections in the handwriting of
George Gemistos Plethon (Ven. Marc. gr. Z. 406).40
In addition to these elaborate pieces of narrative, there are also some more
unpolished and terse texts which convey historical information, in the form
of lists and so-called short chronicles. I will mention two of these here, al-
though they would also fit very well in the section on “practical texts,” dis-
cussed below. “68 years after the Trojan war Homer was born. From
Homer’s birth until Xerxes’ crossing [of the Hellespont] 622 years went by.”
This is the whole extent of Text 49. Not much, I admit, but these micro-texts
were there for a purpose. The scribe could have chosen to fill the last two
lines of a page with decorations, but instead—and especially so in personal
miscellanies such as Theodoros’—one made use of every single blank space
to keep memorable information, adages, and other minimal items. Text 64 is
another short chronicle, a world history painted in broad strokes:
From Adam until the Flood 2242 years went by. And from the Flood until the
hundred years of Abraham, 1569 years. And from Abraham until the exodus
of Israel’s sons, 405 years. And from Moses until the Zedekiah’s siege [of Je-
rusalem], 1076 years. And from Zedekiah until Augustus, the emperor, dur-
ing whose reign our Lord Jesus Christ was born, 608 years. All in all, from
Adam until Christ, 5500 years. And from the birth of Christ until Constantine
the Great, the holy king of the Christians, 296 years. And from the first year
of Constantine the Great until the great Justinian, 224 years.41
Stories are told and a range of narrative devices are employed more or less
everywhere in Gr 8, regardless of what genre definition we allot to the sepa-
rate items, and I could go on relating texts which display a high degree of
narrativity, if it were not for the fact that there are other aspects of the manu-
script to consider. Some of the narrative pieces will end up in the other
groups in this chapter: speeches and poems, for example, would in many
39
MOULAKIS 1986, 147.
40
According to Athanasios Moulakis, Gr 8 and Vat. pal. gr. 146 both depend on Monac. gr.
170 (stemma on p. 173). In his edition he has used Gr 8 only for lines 73–111, where Monac.
gr. 170 has a lacuna. But there is a problem with the dates: Moulakis states that the Munich
manuscript is from the 16th c. (as does the old library catalog by Hardt). As we are dealing
with a composite manuscript, the leaves with Bruni’s text may of course be of earlier date
than the rest of the volume. To keep the stemma as it is, we thus need to assume either an
earlier date than the 16th c. for the Monacensis text, or else a connection between that manu-
script and Gr 8 by way of a common model. The dating of Vat. pal. gr. 146 (also composite)
is of no help, as Moulakis only states that “[t]he works, though not necessarily the copies in
this codex, date from the XIVth, XVth and XVIth centuries” (MOULAKIS 1986,165).
41
For the Greek texts, see Appendix 1.
129
cases have qualified excellently, but in their case I have looked at functions
besides story-telling.
All in all, the narrative works should be seen as an important feature of
Gr 8 when considering the overall character of the book. They certainly con-
tribute to making the book an enjoyable piece of reading. What enhances
their importance is the fact that the longest narrative text (Stephanites in U2)
and also several shorter ones (many of the letters in U3) stand at the front of
the book. But they also come intermingled with many other kinds of texts:
reasoning texts mainly on philosophical and theological subjects, texts useful
for practical reasons, and texts where the narrativity is but one trait and pos-
sibly not the most important factor for the compiler when he made his selec-
tion. To these other kinds of texts we will now procede.
Rhetorical texts
Most texts in this category display an obvious awareness of rhetorical form
and epideictic chiselling of expression. Not that rhetorical training is absent
from the other texts in the codex; there are examples among both narrative
and philosophical texts which could have fit into this category as well. But in
the categorization of texts in Gr 8 my lodestar has been the function of the
texts: what need did the texts serve for the compiler? Rhetorical training was
crucial in Byzantium. If you had rhetorical techniques in your toolbox (in
addition to a good portion of classical erudition) and knew how to make
efficient use of them, they could open doors to a career, a position in the
bureaucracy, they could help you become someone of importance whether in
secular or ecclesiastical circles. The writing of letters, for example, was after
all “the major activity of the bureaucracy,” as George Kennedy puts it.42 Oral
performance must also have been part of what one prepared for. In addition,
the rhetorical excercises and display pieces had become a learned game
which one played alone or in the company of equally well educated friends
and colleagues.43
Nowadays, we tend to see rhetoric as an analytical tool. Not so in late an-
tiquity and in Byzantium: there it was first and foremost a creative-didactic
method. And this is, in my opinion, the underlying rationale of the selection
of many texts which ended up in Gr 8. Normally, Byzantine rhetorical in-
struction was based upon the textbooks of Hermogenes and Aphthonios—at
least from the transmission in manuscripts it seems that these two dominated
42
KENNEDY 1983, 71.
43
After 1453 the career paths for Greeks were not self-evident, whether they stayed in Otto-
man-ruled areas or moved westwards, but in many professions rhetorical skills would still
have been considered an asset. On the place and importance of Greek rhetorics after the fall of
Constantinople, see CONLEY 2000.
130
Rhetorical texts
the market.44 Thus, the rules were more or less set: everyone had to work
one’s way through the progymnasmata (the exercises of fables, elaborations
of proverbs, refutations and confirmations of a statement, and encomia, to
just mention some of the kinds).45 Just as one had to become skilled at the
old, and in reality extinct, version of Attic Greek, one also had to emulate the
rhetors of the past, using examples such as Isocrates, Libanios, and the
Cappadocians as models.
The educational situation was the foundation, but rhetoric became more
important than that. Out of these exercises were created new forms and
genres, literary pastimes as well as significant works. Even though, as is
often said, the only rhetorical genus that survived and flourished in
Byzantium was the epideictic (display), it could be pursued in various
manners. Rhetoric was never “empty.” These works, whether speeches of
praise (and blame), laments over cities lost, or letters of different kinds, had
a role to play in Byzantine society. A letter was not just a personal affair, it
would probably be read aloud, and especially so if one had managed to set
the accurate level of discourse; a subtle display of learning was never wrong
if it was done with grace. It showed that one belonged to the educated few
and it offered delight to the reader who could decipher the common code.
The texts from Gr 8 that will be considered here are on the one hand some
oratory works and poems, on the other hand letters of different kinds: ficti-
tious, personal, literary, instructive, there is a variety to choose from. The
epistolographic section is rich, all in all there are some seventy letters in the
codex. As a consequence, the discussion of these will dominate the survey.
But first a few words on the other rhetorical genres.
Oratory
Texts (5), 20, 27, 28, 55, (71), 72
Depending on the subject matter, oratory works may variously be described
as, e.g., speeches, sermons, and laments. The variation in Gr 8 is analogous.
Two texts are defined as “#<,” speech; two as “<$,” deliberative
(or just public) speech; one is a “´$,” literally a solo song although the
term later came to signify a lament; one has an abbreviated heading: “by
Libanios concerning a garrulous woman”; one lacks its heading in the manu-
script, and another is transmitted as a letter (@
#¤ < > ...).
Text 5, Isocrates’ Oration 1 (µ< ¥
> ), dis-
plays rather few signs of actually being a “speech.” At least it seems to have
been produced as a written discourse, sent by Isocrates as a gift to Demoni-
44
Cf. KUSTAS 1973, 9f. New rhetorical manuals were added as well: George Gemistos Ple-
thon and John Argyropoulos, for example, wrote their own treatises on rhetoric in the 15th c.
(MONFASANI 1983, 255).
45
On progymnasmata, see, for example, KENNEDY 1983, 54–73.
131
cus, for him to read.46 This ambiguity between written and oral is present in
other texts as well. Since it was common to read texts aloud, the distinction
is perhaps less of a problem. One and the same text could also have been
performed publicly at one point, and been distributed for circulation as a text
later, as in the case of Libanios’ speech. The subject matter of Isocrates
speech makes it expedient to postpone the discussion of it until later, in con-
nection with the practical texts.
Libanios’ Declamation 26 (Text 27) is an exhibition of forensic speech as
it was practiced in the old days, in Athens.47 Libanios presents the case of a
husband making an appeal to the court to rid himself of his unendurable
wife. In Byzantium this imaginary speech was the most popular of all of
Libanios’ declamations.48 The main characters could have been picked from
New Comedy, and Libanios’ handling of the subject makes the piece a kind
of literary stand-up comedy. An interesting detail in the description of the
wife is that she is not only talkative (in her husband’s opinion, that is), she is
obviously also an educated woman, who makes encomia and orations, she
studies during the night, is interested in matters of the city, the army, the
businesses in town, et cetera. This is not the role in which we are used to
picture women in antiquity. The comical part is that the old grump just goes
on and on describing his wife and her loquaciousness. His whole statement
in front of the jury is one long tirade (which he has opened by declaring how
much he yearns for silence). “A talkative person I couldn’t bear even in a
dream,” he says, while his longwinded speech gushes forth uninterruptedly
like a torrent in spring.
The two “<$,” public speeches, are the the ones from Josephus’
The Jewish War (Text 71). Since these, the <$ $
Á^ Â -
^ and the <$ ¥%¬, were discussed among the narratives, I
leave them aside here.
The text which besides Isocrates’ speech is called a “#<” is an item as-
cribed to John Chrysostom (Text 28). The title in our manuscript is />

=

>
$ "= + + "

(speech against Herodias and regarding wicked women). The Chrysostom
attribution of this work is usually regarded as spurious.49 The text seems to
be a misogynic sermon in a vein all but rare in patristic texts—at least it
looks that way from the portion of the text transmitted in Gr 8. In its entirety
the sermon is actually made up of two parts, one of invective (psogos),
where all the vile women in (Biblical) history are enumerated and discarded,
46
Isoc. Ad Dem. 1, 2: Ò
#Ñ
×
> #×< . Who this Demonicus was is not
clear: according to ancient tradition he was the son of one Hipponicus, a Cyprian and a friend
of the orator.
47
On declamation ( #\
), see RUSSELL 1983, 9–20.
48
RUSSELL 1996, 14.
49
Cf. MERCATI 1921, 231. See also PG 59, 485–490 (In decollationem praecursoris et baptis-
tae Ioannis, et in Herodiadem); CPG 4001 and 4570.
132
Rhetorical texts
and one of praise (epainos), an attempt at finding at least a few female

counter-examples. Too bad that only the psogos part was spicy enough to
find a place in Gr 8. Probably the work was not at all conceived as a sermon.
It could be that we have here a sheer rhetorical excercise in the praise-and-
blame genre, though with the subject matter borrowed from the religious
sphere. Due to later readers’ willingness to take it seriously, it may have
gotten more weight than intended.
The historical lament on a city is a rhetorical and literary topic with a long
tradition. From having been a predominantly poetic form during antiquity,
the city lament, or monody as it is often called, became more of a prose
composition from the Second Sophistic and onwards.50 The Byzantines con-
tinued in the same strain, delivering orations but also poems on various cit-
ies, and the last and greatest calamity of all, the Ottoman conquest of Con-
stantinople in 1453, was certainly not to be left unsung. Erwin Fenster com-
ments on some of these monodies, those written by Andronikos Kallistos,
John Eugenikos, two Anonymi, and Matthew Kamariotes. He also has a few
remarks on the monody written by Manuel Christonymos.51 Gr 8 is one of
the few manuscripts known to transmit this work (Monody on the Capture of
Constantinople, Text 20), and Spyridon Lampros used it for his edition.52
Fenster finds Christonymos’ monody more interesting than the one that John
Eugenikos wrote (although one should add that Fenster restricts his study to
the use of rhetorical topoi of praise). The themes exploited by Christonymos
are Constantinople as the “eye of the inhabited world,” the “crown of the
Graces,” the devoted “mother of cities.” But the most important trait was her
role as sovereign in intellectual matters: “she alone was the mother and nur-
turer of Logos, she was the real Hellas.”53
Text 72 is presented in Gr 8 as a letter from Nikephoros Gregoras to the
Grand Logothete Theodore Metochites.54 I mention it here, among the ora-
tory works, because, as a whole, the text shows very few signs of adhering to
50
Aelius Aristeides, for example, wrote a piece on Smyrna after the earthquake and Libanios
did the same for Nicomedia. On the tradition of historical laments for cities, see also ALEXIOU
1974, 83–101.
51
See FENSTER 1968, 281–289.
52

+ " * "
>, ed. LAMPROS 1908, 227–240. The other
two manuscripts are Bruxell. 11270 and Par. gr. 2077 (text incomplete). According to Paul
Wittek the scribe of the Brussels manuscript is “wahrscheinlich <Michael Apostoles>”
(MORAUX 1976, 81). The other monodies which Fenster mentions were edited in the same
publication by Lampros (
. 5).
53
LAMPROS 1908, 232; cf. FENSTER 1968, 285.
54
Nikephoros, who was born in Herakleia (Paphlagonia) in the early 1290s, came to Constan-
tinople to study. Among his teachers was Theodore Metochites, the addressee of the letter in
Gr 8. Supported by his patron John Kantakouzenos (later to become emperor), Nikephoros
devoted his life to scientific and literary studies. His largest undertaking is the Historia
Rhomaïke, which covers the period 1204–1358. In addition to this, and numerous treatises on
various subjects (not least on hesychasm, to which he was an ardent opponent), there is a
large collection of letters extant. The letter in Gr 8 is not included in Pietro Leone’s edition of
the epistolary collection (LEONE 1982–83).
133
the epistolary genre; as a matter of fact, without the heading,

#¤
< >
> }

#<=\
#
¤
¯

$, one would never have suspected it to be a letter at all. Its pri-
mary place in the manuscript tradition is as an oration integrated into
Gregoras’ Historia Rhomaïke.55 The subject discussed is astronomy:56 Ni-
kephoros urges the Grand Logothete to share his knowledge in astronomical
matters with him, and, as he points out in his history where he refers to this
communication with Metochites, his request was well-received and he ended
up spending much time with the Logothete in astronomical pursuits. The
speech is more of an exhibition of rhetorical splendor than a personal
message. In one manuscript it is added as an introduction to Metochites’ own
treatise on the fundamentals of astronomy, and that is perhaps the most suit-
able place for it, considering its adulatory appeal and high-flown rhetoric.57
That there is a close connection between prose composition and poetry,
and that both were part of rhetorical training, may be illustrated by the next
example, Text 55, which is a prose paraphrase of Gregory of Nazianzos’
poem On Virtue (Carm. mor. I. 2, 9). The progymnasmata, especially fables,
narratives, descriptions, and comparison, were preparations for the study of
rhetoric but also for poetic composition,58 and the paraphrase was one type of
exercise which enhanced poetic awareness. Specific instructions on how to
write prose paraphrases of poetry were included in the rhetorical hand-
books.59 Text 55 is a rather ordinary example of such an exercise: the para-
phrast has not commented on or elaborated the text very much but kept close
to the original. Still, it is more advanced than an alternative paraphrase of the
same poem, known from three manuscripts.60 The paraphrase in Gr 8 is thus
far not attested elsewhere.
Poetry
Texts (33), (38), (42), 46, 47, 51, 52, 58, 73, 74, 77
The poetical works in Gr 8 are not a particularly prominent group. Alto-
gether they occupy ca. 40 pages, or 6 % of the whole codex. In addition to
the poems discussed here, there are three texts which are composed in so-
called political, or fifteen-syllable, verse: the excerpts from Tzetzes’ Chili-
55
Nic. Greg., Hist. I. 322, 19 – 327, 5. According to Jan-Louis van Dieten, the text is trans-
mitted as a letter in six manuscripts (Gr 8 uncounted); VAN DIETEN 1975, 138. Cf. VAN DIETEN
1973, I 46 (No. 12) and 50 (No. 32).
56
Besides Nikephoros Gregoras’ letter on astronomy, there are other texts in Gr 8 which
suggest that the scribe Theodoros took an interest in such matters, especially Text 66, a text
on astrology and sand divination, and some of the passages from Text 56, Theodoret of Kyr-
ros’ Cure of the Pagan Maladies. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
57
Cod. Vat. gr. 1087, f. Ir–v (VAN DIETEN 1973, I, 50).
58
KENNEDY 1999, 136.
59
SEARBY 2003a, 341f.
60
Cf. SEARBY 2003a, 342.
134
Rhetorical texts
ades (Text 42), a hymn to the Theotokos (Text 33), and a gnomology con-
taining excerpts from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike (Text 38).
There is also, somewhat unexpectedly perhaps, a Latin poem in Gr 8. Text
77 is Ausonius’ poem De institutione viri boni.61 This poem appears along-
side those texts in U15 which are set bilingually, in Latin with a Greek trans-
lation above. The Ausonius poem was apparently not intended to have a
translation accompany it, because the lines are set much closer on the page.
An hypothesis may be that Theodoros wished to practice writing in a human-
ist hand, and needed another model text for this.
The rhetorical topic of praise and lament on cities has already been intro-
duced. There is a poem on the same theme, Text 51. Michael Choniates’
Elegy on Athens is a small lament in twelve-syllable verse, which he wrote
when he was the bishop there in the early thirteenth century. He deplores
what has been lost over the centuries of ancient Athens and describes the
sorry state of the medieval “rural” town. The poem has been shown to intri-
cately combine the monody with ekphrastic and erotic discourse as we know
it from twelfth-century novelistic writings.62
Two epigrams from the Palatine Anthology are included in Gr 8, AP IX
359–360 (Text 58). The first is by Posidippus of Pella (ca. 310–240 BCE),
the second (although headed by
^
^, “by the same author” in Gr 8) is
presumably written by Metrodoros, who was active at the turn of the sixth
century.63 Together these create a contrastive pair of epigrams, where the
second one apparently was created as a close variation and comment on the
first. In Posidippus’ poem, a pessimistic picture of life is given. “What’s the
best path to take in life?” the poet asks, and goes on to enumerate all the
difficulties and anxieties which a human being inevitably comes across. “It
all boils down, then, to a choice of two: never to be born or, once born, to die
on the spot.”64 To this Metrodoros retorts: “Pursue every path in life [...]
There is, then, no choice of two, never to be born or, once born, to die; for
all in life is great.” This rhetorical sport, where one emulates a poem and
makes something new out of it, was not a new phenomenon in Byzantium,
although it must have been a very appropriate pursuit, given the general ven-
eration of ancient literature.65 With its focus on how to improve one’s argu-
61
Ausonius’ poem has also been transmitted in manuscripts as (pseudo-)Vergilian. See further
CLAUSEN 1966, 165–168.
62
The discussion is found in the comment by Marc Lauxtermann on Panagiotis Agapitos’
report on Byzantine vernacular romances: see AGAPITOS 2004, 65f. (debate in Symbolae
Osloenses 79:1).
63
The popularity of these epigrams is shown by their inclusion into numerous florilegia (cf.
GOW & PAGE 1965, II, 502).
64
Transl. Frank Nisetich (GUTZWILLER 2005, 47).
65
Plutarch’s discussion of how the poets’ wordings may be re-written to better suit a certain
moral also goes to show how an active reader could go about using the texts; cf. examples in
Plut. Mor. I, 33 (from How the young man should study poetry). On the infidus author in
Greco-Roman literature, who selects from and modifies his sources, repeating with a differ-
135
mentation and how to vary one’s speech, the rhetorical education would also
have encouraged this activity of re-writing.
The epigram as a poetic genre is often associated with the short, perhaps
witty, always elegant pieces such as the ones just mentioned. As Marc Laux-
termann has shown, though, the Byzantine epigrammatic genre is so much
more than that; Byzantine epigrams may, for example, easily turn into full-
length poetic texts.66 Two such poems are present in Gr 8, one on an explic-
itly Christian subject, the Last Judgment, and one composed as a lament on
the occasion of a shipwreck. The former (Text 73) could have been referred
to the section on theological texts, below, while the latter (Text 74) was kept
here as an example of rhetorical splendor. But since these two texts are
transmitted in connection to each other in other manuscripts as well, I prefer
to discuss them together.67 As in the case with the praise-and-blame piece on
Biblical women mentioned above, one may assume that epideictic epigrams,
poetic showpieces, were created on secular as well as Christian topics. Both
of these poems display technical and rhetorical skill and compositional
awareness. Text 73 (inc. æ
$ <¯= $) is an anacreontic poem writ-
ten by Emperor Leo VI (Leo the Wise). In Gr 8 the title is missing, but in
other manuscripts it is usually referred to as ="
">68 The
poem is organized acrostically, something which goes for the next poem
also, Text 74. This text, which has not been identified in Gr 8 before, is Con-
stantine Sikeliotes’ “anacreontic alphabet” (inc. |> #=%).69
Text 46, a strophic poem in fifteen-syllable verse, has suffered the fate of
two misleading designations, Carmen paraeneticum and “
^ \.” Let
us begin with the latter. The genuine Spaneas poem goes back to the twelfth
century but has seen many versions as regards its length, contents, and lan-
guage form. These versions, however, have one thing in common: the close
correspondence to a certain florilegium, the so-called Excerpta Parisina.70
All the strophes in the Spaneas build upon a suite of sayings borrowed from
ence, see ROSENMEYER 1992, 147–151. On the literary tradition of epigram pairs written by
the same author, so-called companion pieces, see KIRSTEIN 2002.
66
LAUXTERMANN 2003, 23. On the use of the term @$< in Byzantine texts, see LAUX-
TERMANN 2003, 26–34.
67
The same two poems are combined in at least two other manuscripts, Barocc. 133 (end of
14th c.) and Vindob. Theol. gr. 265 (14th c.).
68
A clue to the identity of the first poem is actually provided already in the pinax by Nicholas
de la Torre, where it was labeled /

`"
"=" (see p. 66). Torallas
Tovar’s description of this and the next text as “[m]áximas en orden alfabético” is inadequate
(TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 238). Pietro Matranga’s Greek editio princeps from 1850 and
Jacopo Pontani’s 1603 Latin version of the same poem are available in PG 107, 309–314;
MATRANGA 1850, II, 683–688. See also CICCOLELLA 1989; on Leo VI and his literary activity,
see ANTONOPOULOU 1997.
69
Ed. MONACO 1951; MATRANGA 1850, II, 689–692.
70
These sayings, which belong to the larger florilegial collection Corpus Parisinum, were
edited as a separate collection by Leo Sternbach (STERNBACH 1894). They are found on ff.
83r–121v in Par. gr. 1168.
136
Rhetorical texts
this florilegium.71 The poem in Gr 8, on the other hand, shows no relation to

these sayings. It belongs to the version which George Danezis labeled
“Pseudo-Spaneas.” One manuscript actually refers to the poem as
$_
#

^ $,72 but it is obvious that the poem “bei jeder weiteren
Beschäftigung mit dem Spaneas-Text ausgeschlossen werden muß.”73
The other designation, Carmen paraeneticum, was applied by Vilhelm
Lundström in his 1902 edition.74 But whereas the genuine Spaneas is parae-
netic, providing moral advice in the same vein as gnomological literature,
this is not quite so in Text 46. Instead we have a despondent poem about the
world and its illusory character, the vanity of human existence.
The poem Carmen Paraeneticum is present in Gr 8 in yet another setting,
as Text 52, but this time with only one stanza, inc. Â Á }#}.
The re-use of this strophe may suggest that this was a poem that Theodoros
had learnt by heart. The striking position of Text 46 may also support this:
following upon a long list of Jewish patriarchs and of the kings of various
nations, the poem very neatly starts out with a strophe on King Solomon, and
also in several other stanzas there are comments about the kings and rulers of
this world.
Text 47 is a small epigram used as a page filler, this time in twelve-
syllable verse: #"Ë
$
Ê> _ | }" @ \_
#< ¨ | ¹
< \_

_ , | + ¬
\ .75
Epistolography
The writing of letters was a major application of rhetoric in late antiquity as
well as in the Byzantine centuries. Epistolography is often put forward as a
central literary genre, or even the genre in which the Byzantines excelled the
most. Letters can certainly be literature, but they were also part of people’s
lives in a more pragmatic way. Since most of the letters extant in manu-
scripts were probably deliberately composed to be of lasting value, even to
be “published” if one were lucky, they are hardly representative of Byzan-
tine letter-writing as a whole. The late ancient papyrus letters which reflect
71
The earlier theory was that the Spaneas poem built directly on Isocrates’ speech To De-
monicus, but George Danezis has convincingly argued that the gnomology is the source of all
the sayings in the poem (DANEZIS 1987; cf. KRUMBACHER 1897, 802f.).
72
Vat. Barb. II 99, f. 4v; LUNDSTRÖM 1902, 3.
73
DANEZIS 1987, 214.
74
Twelve manuscripts are known to transmit this poem (15th–18th c.). Lundström based his
edition on six of them, Gr 8 included. For the manuscripts and editions of “Gruppe IV:
Pseudo-Spaneas,” see DANEZIS 1987, 209f.
75
“Having received an honor, reward those whom you have at your hands, inspiring awe even
as you utter one word, because an honor escapes on swift feet, only the memory of you stays
on.”
137
everyday life are certainly of a different kind. Here we will concentrate on

the more conscientious production of so-called literary letters, those which
presuppose a certain familiarity with rhetorical training. It is necessary to
make further distinctions: in addition to the real everyday letters, private as
well as official ones, we have the fictitious letters, either those in which
manufactured words are at a later stage put in the mouth of an historical per-
son, or those which are entirely imaginary, composed simply for the amuse-
ment and gamefulness of it. In either case they functioned as rhetorical ex-
cercises in mimesis: at the level of representation—expressing a certain per-
son’s ethos and speech—and at the level of artistic imitation, in relation to
the genre of letter-writing.
Thus far, the boundaries are fairly clear, and these categories more or less
cover the ancient letters. However, when it comes to Byzantine letters, the
most profuse output consists of so-called real but literary letters.76 These are
the letters that were actually written and sent as an act of communication
between sender and receiver, but which were also designed with the ulterior
motive that they might get a larger audience: they could be read aloud
among friends and copied by fans, collected by the writer or receiver, or by
someone else who wished to treasure them for the future.77 They could be
honest and personal—as far as people allow for that in public—but at the
same time molded and polished to pass as small artefacts. Byzantine letters
filled a social function, confirming friendship and contacts;78 they were also
a ticket to the small clique of intellectuals who understood the riddles and
allusions, and could appreciate the balanced and elegant form.79 One charac-
teristic of the genre is its playful approach to literary creation, thus demand-
ing a fair share of education and erudition from its consumers.80
In Gr 8, there are no less than 70 letters of different kinds and from dif-
ferent times. Some are obviously fictitious; others are addressed to real per-
sons. Most of them show literary ambition; one or two seem more like trea-
tises, one is just a covering letter which explains why another (copy of a)
letter was sent to someone. In length they vary between two lines and eleven
manuscript pages. Below, I will briefly touch upon most of these, at first in a
76
A discussion of this epistolary category is found in MULLETT 1981; on Byzantine epistolo-
graphy at large, see also HATLIE 1996; GRÜNBART 2007.
77
Antonio Garzya has stressed that letters, though deliberately well-wrought, were still a form
of Gebrauchsliteratur, something that was consumed immediately at reception, and also fit
for practical purposes, through recycling of their topoi and themes, wording and imagery.
Thus new letters could be written as intellectual “palimpsests” on those one had received and
read (GARZYA 1981).
78
On friendship as an epistolary topos, see KARLSSON 1962, esp. chs. 1 and 3.
79
The instructions that Gregory of Nazianzos presented to his nephew Nikoboulos (Ep. 51)
are often referred to as a kind of measuring stick for Byzantine letters. According to Gregory,
letters should have the properties of \
, }¬ , and _, i.e., they should be concise,
clear, and pleasant. Cf. DENNIS 1986; GRÜNBART 2007, 125–128.
80
“Der Gattung ist ein spielerischer Umgang mit den literarischen Vorfahren immanent”
(GRÜNBART 2007, 137).
138
Rhetorical texts
more or less chronological order, but I will also look at the position of these
texts inside the manuscript, to see if that can help us assess their functions.
Ancient letters
Texts 8–9, 11b
The larger share of the letters in Gr 8 stems from late antiquity, but some are
even earlier in origin. The first such group, the Hippocratic letters (Text 8),
belongs to what is sometimes referred to as the “Persian” epistolary novel.81
Their authorship is considered spurious, and dating the letters is also prob-
lematic: Wesley Smith only states that “whatever their date of composition,
the letters were added to the collection of medical works at a time later than
the two [pseudepigraphic] speeches,” i.e. after the last quarter of the third
century BCE.82 The outline of contents in the three letters transmitted in Gr 8
is the following: (8) Artaxerxes wants the Coans to surrender Hippocrates to
him for being insolent, or else he will destroy their city. (9) The Coans an-
swer that they will not give in to his claims. (1) Artaxerxes laments the
plague which is ravaging among his people and asks Petos to send him word
of where to find a remedy.83 As Niklas Holzberg points out, there is both
satire and realism in the glimpses that we get from the Hippocratic letters.84
An important theme is also the interaction between intellectuals and those in
power: Hippocrates will not help the enemy, and the gold that Artaxerxes
offers is less influential than a wise word.
Another fictitious letter in Gr 8 dealing with illness is attributed to Dio-
cles of Karystos, who in the fourth century BCE was a renowned physician
in Athens (latter part of Text 11). This letter, probably stemming from the
first century BCE, is discussed below, in connection with the medical texts.
The Anacharsis letters (Text 9) form another instance of fictitious letters.
There was in the sixth century BCE an historical person with the name
Anacharsis, known to us through Herodotos’ writings. This Scythian trav-
eled widely and came to Greece to learn about the Greek way of life. When
81
On epistolary novels as a genre, see HOLZBERG 1994 (the Hippocratic letters are dealt with
specifically on pp. 22–38); and ROSENMEYER 1994.
82
SMITH 1990, 6. According to Dimitrios Sakales they derive from the 1st c. BCE (SAKALES
1989, 17, n. 1).
83
The order of the texts is obviously reversed compared to the logical explication of the
novel: the introductory letter (Ep. 1) follows after Epp. 8 and 9, but this is probably not a
deliberate choice made by Theodoros. The manuscript tradition of these letters is very com-
plex; the papyri only contain letters 3–6 and 11, and some manuscripts also seem to corrobo-
rate that the sequence 3–9 was the core to which the first two letters were then added as an
introduction to the letters that follow; cf. SMITH 1990, 18 and 37. In its sequencing of the
letters Gr 8 corresponds with Cod. Monac. gr. 490 (15th c.), where Hipp. Epp. 3–9 and 1 are
presented in the same way. Moreover, it also contains the Anacharsis Epp. 1–8 (+ No. 9 mu-
til.) in the same position as in Gr 8, i.e. directly after Hippocrates. According to Franz
Heinrich Reuters’ edition of the Anacharsis letters, both of these manuscripts are dependent
on Cod. Vatic. gr. 1353, dated to 1462 (REUTERS 1957, 42).
84
HOLZBERG 1994, 22.
139
he returned home, this was not appreciated and he was put to death by his
own people, says Herodotos.85 The memory of Anacharsis became idealized,
and eventually he was even counted among the Seven Sages.86 However, the
epistolary tradition is much later than Anacharsis himself; the pseudonymous
letter collection was produced in the first half of the third century BCE,
when the Cynic movement made him into a hero.87 Gr 8 presents us with
Epp. 1–8: the first two letters spell out that Greeks and barbarians (those
who speak other languages) should be seen as equal, and hospitality should
apply to everyone, without difference. In customs and outer appearance peo-
ple differ, but wisdom and foolishness are the same everywhere. The rest of
the letters are an appeal for a simple, righteous life and fair government. In
this they display the same kind of sentiment as we find in some of the other
texts in Gr 8: Stephanites and Ichnelates (Text 3) and Isocrates’ speech To
Demonicus (Text 5), both of which are regarded as Prince’s Mirrors.
The Church Fathers take up the pen

Texts (7), 36, 67–70
Let us proceed with the late antique letters in Gr 8. I have already mentioned
one letter by Gregory of Nazianzos, above (Text 7, p. 125); the other one
allegedly by Gregory is a mere two-line trifle addressed to Libanios (Text
69).88 In general terms, though, it is worth mentioning that many of Greg-
ory’s letters were among those held up as exemplary in both Byzantine and
post-Byzantine letter manuals.89 This admiration was also given Basil the
85
Hdt. 4. 76–77. On the Anacharsis legend and its florilegial transmission, see KINDSTRAND
1981.
86
The tradition of the Seven Sages is not entirely stable: the version in Gr 8, for example,
does not include Anacharsis (Text 59, f. 279r). On this tradition, see further KINDSTRAND
1981, 33–50.
87
This means that the Anacharsis letters may be the oldest extant collection which unques-
tionably is made up of pseudonymous, fictitious letters (REUTERS 1963, 2). The dating is
mainly based upon linguistic traits, but also on geographical information in the letters; cf.
REUTERS 1963, 3f. and 1957, 11f. Patricia Rosenmeyer argues that pseudonymous letters
occupy a kind of middle-ground between embedded letters (such as we meet in historical and
novelistic works) and the epistolary novel; she sees them as influenced by the former and
suggestive of the latter; ROSENMEYER 2001, 193, and 209–217.
88
“As a mother I have sent children to a father, me—a mother by nature, to you—a father of
eloquence. That I may still take care of them, you should take care of them.” (Gr. Naz., Ep.
236). Why someone even bothered transmitting it, is difficult to understand. The topic, how-
ever, is similar to Basil’s Epp. 1 and 3 to Libanios, above (numbered according to the corre-
spondence of Libanios and Basil; they equal Epp. 335 and 337 in the Benedictine edition of
Basil’s letters; see also n. 94, below). I find it less plausible to see the letter as something
Gregory sent “im Namen der Mutter des Jünglings,” as Marie-Madeleine Hauser-Meury has
it, and read it rather as if Gregory likens his own role to that of a mother; cf. HAUSER-MEURY
1960, 113).
89
This is the case for example in Theophilos Korydalleus’ letter manual (RHOBY 2007, 416–
418). A couple of letter manuals of late antique or early Byzantine origin have been transmit-
ted under the names of Demetrios of Phaleron, Libanios and Proklos. On these, see RABE
140
Rhetorical texts
Great and Libanios, whose correspondence in Gr 8 is more substantial

(Texts 67–68, 70).90 These texts, 27 letters all in all, make up the greater part
of U13, together with a couple of excerpts from Josephus’ The Jewish War
and yet another letter, from Nikephoros Gregoras to Theodore Metochites.
Among the letters of Basil and Libanios, Text 67 (Basil Ep. 2) seems to
stand apart, giving more comprehensive information, whereas most of the
others are relatively short and could have been included for their merit as
model letters for a scribe. The title given in the manuscript also points in that
direction: while the others are presented with just an “@
# "”
(mutual letters), Basil’s Ep. 2 is labeled “~#$.” This letter, addressed to
Gregory of Nazianzos, is an early sketch of Basil’s anchorite program, the
conditions of ascetic life.91 Since no other texts in Gr 8 are devoted to mo-
nastic or ascetic matters, I find it worthy of note that Theodoros incorporated
precisely this letter of the Church Father. These are the basic elements of
Basil’s rule, as he pictured it in Ep. 2: stillness, solitude, prayer, Scriptural
study, moderation in speaking, sandals and one girdled tunic only, vegetarian
food, light sleep interrupted by meditations. With such a severe subject mat-
ter one may think the letter is as harsh to read, but that is not so. It flows
smoothly, and is interspersed with similes and allusions to various stories, to
carry the reader onward; from the unaccustomed voyager who keeps suffer-
ing from sea sickness even on shore, over similes of the unsteady gaze which
cannot focus, the wax tablet which must be erased before being inscribed
again, the doctor’s shop with specific remedies for each infirmity, to the
Biblical stories of Joseph, Job, David, and others. Even if Basil states that
one should show moderation in speech, he surely knows how to put his
words agreeably and efficiently in a letter. On one point, this letter does ad-
here to his ascetic code: he does not resort to wit here, whereas in some of
the letters sent to Libanios there is a definite (although subtle) quality of
humor and jest.
The opinions on the presumed or refuted authenticity of Libanios’ and
Basil’s correspondence (Text 68) have differed widely over the years, and
the matter still seems unresolved.92 If Libanios was the teacher of Basil—an
1909; WEICHERT 1910. See also Chapter 5, below, concerning the formulary in Gr 8, ff. 320–
323 (Text 81).
90
Although cataloged as just three items in my inventory of Gr 8, the actual number of letters
by these two authors is larger: Text 67 = Bas. Ep. 2. Text 68 = Lib.–Bas. Epp. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–
6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12. Text 70 = Bas. Epp. 330; 332; 186; 187.
91
The full title on f. 286r is:
^ @ *<$
> # $ _ $
$
^ <#¨ ~#$ > <
> = #< "$

%.
92
As Wolf-Dieter Hauschild summarizes the matter, “Die Echtheit der Korrespondenz
zwischen Basilius und Libanius ist seit den Zweifeln Garniers und Marans [PG 29, CLIX]
mehrfach bestritten worden. Bis heute hat das Problem keine allgemein akzeptierte Lösung
gefunden [...]. Die auf stilistischen Beobachtungen basierende Kritik an der Echtheit (z.B. bei
Laube und Foerster) kann nicht definitiv überzeugen; sie müßte umfassender und detaillierter
begründet werden” (HAUSCHILD 1993, 243). Unquestionably spurious are Letters 9, 13, and
141
issue still under dispute—it is at least possible that the communication took
place.93 Whatever the truth, the position of Gr 8 is unwavering: Theodoros
has meticulously marked each letter with either µ" # $´ or
$# µ"$´.94 The subject matter of the letters varies: there are letters
of recommendation, as Basil sends young men to join Libanios’ teaching,
and Libanios’ replies to these (Epp. 1; 15; 2; 3; 12). There are comments on
everyday conditions and practical matters: Basil in Ep. 16 “while I wrote it, I
covered this letter with snow, so that you may feel how cold it is and under-
stand how it is to be locked in by the grim winter. We live in tombs here
until spring brings our corpses back to life;” Epp. 13 and 14: Libanios needs
rafters—can Basil send them to him? This could of course not be said with-
out due rhetorical meandering. Basil answers with more of this wordplay and
teasing, the key message being: “have sent 300 rafters to you.” Epp. 3–6 are
linked to and comment on each other, praising the eloquence of the other in a
quest for humbleness and mutual admiration. They are letters about letter-
writing, something which could make them even more interesting as “model
letters” for a scribe like Theodoros. Other letters, too, comment on the lack
of letters or the difficulty in writing them: Ep. 7 Libanios to Basil: Are you
still mad at me? If not, why don’t you write me? Ep. 22 Basil: “Receiving
the letters you write, joy; but when asked to reply to your letters, struggle.”
Ep. 10: Basil has not heard from Libanios for ages and ends with an “Ok,
bye then”—which sounds more like a “well, screw you, then!”—“Write if
you wish, don’t write if that suits you better.” To this Libanios in Ep. 11 says
“I’m sorry” (although Libanios actually needed 300 words to say this and
make it sound like it was Basil who had wronged him).
Epp. 17–20 create an intriguing appendage to another text in Gr 8, Text
27. I give an abridged paraphrase of the first letter, from Basil to Libanios:
People marvel at your eloquence. They seem to have listened to a splendid

display, and I hear everyone was there: nobles, enrolled recruits, craftsmen,
yes, even women! They told me the orator had given a declamation on a
grouchy husband. Well, I want to hear it too. Send it to me!
14, and this probably goes for Letter 8 as well (HAUSCHILD 1993, 244). On the authenticity of
the correspondence, see also CRIBIORE 2007, 100f.
93
Raffaella Cribiore states that “Basil was indeed a student of Libanius, but not in Antioch
and not for long.” Basil took advantage of the teachings of philosophers and rhetors during his
stay in Constantinople (in 348 or 349 CE), precisely the period when Libanios taught in Ni-
comedia and Constantinople. A letter of Basil’s brother, Gregory of Nyssa, corroborates this,
since Basil is there called “student” (=
¬) of Libanios (Ep. 13); CRIBIORE 2007, 100.
94
I number these mutual letters according to Foerster’s edition of Libanios (Epistularum
Basilii et Libanii quod fertur commercium; FOERSTER 1922, 11, 572–597. This means that
Lib.–Bas. Epp. 1–22 equal Bas. Epp. 335–356 in Garnier & Maran’s edition of Basil’s letters
(usually called the Benedictine edition of 1839; PG 32, 1077–1097); the letters in Gr 8 are set
in the following sequence: Epp. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12.
142
Rhetorical texts
Libanios’ lauded performance probably presented the same declamation that

Theodoros has included in U6 (Text 27, cf. above, p. 132).95 In the next let-
ter Libanios says that he has sent his speech to Basil, but he trembles at the
verdict. Basil replies, piling up superlatives, saying that he really thought he
saw this man together with his chatty woman. “For a speech alive on earth
has Libanios written, he who alone has given words a life.” Libanios is very
happy with Basil’s estimation and can now swagger around with pride. In
sum, the exchange of letters between Libanios and Basil is an exhibition of
eloquence coupled with charm and wit. Consequently, this part of the manu-
script vouches for amusing reading in addition to being a possible fount for
model texts.
The same could be said about the next few letters by Basil, Epp. 330, 332,
186 and 187 (Text 70). The first two, both without addressee, are short, pithy
expressions from someone who is tired of waiting for letters. The ideas are:
a) If you love me, write me! b) Are you dead or what? If not, write me! Epp.
186–187 are devoted to Sauerkraut(!). In a letter to Antipater, the governor
of Cappadocia, Basil comments on the fact that pickled cabbage has restored
the governor’s appetite and health. This food, which Basil could hardly en-
dure, “both on account of the proverb [cited only in Antipater’s reply], and
because it reminded me of its companion, poverty,” ought therefore be re-
evaluated and held in highest esteem, even surpassing Homeric lotus and the
ambrosia of the gods. In Antipater’s reassuring answer he gives us the prov-
erb: “cabbage twice is death.” The tone in these letters is light and good-
humored. “I have often wished to die,” Antipater says, “but that will only
happen once—and whether I ask for it or not.” These letters go well together
with some of the medical texts in Gr 8: the excerpts from Paul of Aegina,
which all treat the connection between food-stuff and health, and the letter
attributed to Diocles of Karystos, stressing diet and purging as the way to
avoid sickness (see Text 11, below p. 174).
Text 36 (on f. 196 in U6) bestows us two more letters from late antiquity.
Isidore of Pelousion lived his life as a monk near Pelousion (today’s Tell el-
Farama, in the eastern part of the Nile Delta) and died an old man not later
than 449–450. His voluminous correspondence—2000 letters—deals with
dogmatics and exegetics, with ecclesiastical and monastic discipline, but it
also addresses practical morality for the guidance of laymen, whether they
be judges, rulers, or teachers. The two letters in Gr 8, Epp. , 390 and , 167,
belong to this last category.96 Since their subject matter is somewhat peculi-
ar, I render them in full:
95
Lib. Decl. 26: Ô# <ò #Ñ# < ¡
> <<Ò## .
96
On the transmission and authenticity of the correspondence, see EVIEUX 1976, 329–335.
There is no modern edition of Isidore’s whole correspondence; for the Greek wording of the
above letters, see PG 78, 401 and 292f.
143
[To Quintinianos:]97
Harsh rumors trouble me and bring offensive tidings. Some people say that
you were so mad and out of your mind, so as to wish to bring this child who
by God was made capable of receiving all erudition, to carry weapons and go
on a cheap and despicable campaign, a playground of death. Now, if you
have not completely suffered a loss of wits, give up this confused plan. Do
not put a light out which endeavors to glow brilliantly, but allow him to
devote himself to studies. That other dignity, or rather penalty, you should
procure for other vagrants, those who go well together with the common lack
of learning. (Ep. , 390)
[To Esaias, the soldier:]
The man who takes pleasure in combat, and enjoys the clamor, and keenly
pursues that which is repulsive to everybody else—what should one aptly call
him, if not an evil demon, who of his own accord has transformed his nature?
Because already here, ahead of time, Christ punishes the demons, and in that
other place he has promised them an eternal fire along with their father. Ei-
ther bring an end to your quest for a tumultuous life, or know that already
here you are liable to whipping, and beyond, you will not escape vengeance.
(Ep. , 167)
One certainly wonders what made Theodoros select these two letters and no
other from Isidore’s vast collection. Had he himself once wished to be a
soldier? Did he have a son or another person close to him, whom he needed
to dissuade from walking that road? Mere speculations, yes, but out of 2000
letters, why these pacifist statements? One may object here that we cannot
know if Theodoros selected these two letters out of a corpus of Isidore’s
writings or not. True, but he still chose to put these two in his book, even if
he happened to stumble upon them in another context. I find the choice of
the subject matter fascinating.
Byzantine epistolographers
Texts (42), 43, (72)
Theophylact Simokates is perhaps less known than many other writers of the
early Byzantine period. He lived in the early part of the seventh century, and
wrote, among other things, a history of the reign of Emperor Maurice (582–
602). As an author of fictitious letters he has been rather unfairly judged by
some scholars: Eduard Norden and Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff
used words like “silly” and “grimacing monster” to describe him,98 but, for-
tunately, their yardstick of estimation is now out-of-date. In the wake of the
ongoing reappraisal of Hellenistic poetry and post-classical rhetoric has
97
The addressee Quintinianos is not mentioned in Gr 8, and neither is Esaias, the soldier, in
the next letter. These have been added from Migne’s text in PG 78.
98
NISSEN 1937, 17.
144
Rhetorical texts
come a wider understanding of the minor formats of literary creation, and an

appreciation of the games authors play through intertextual commentary and
re-use and variation of familiar topics. Simokates’ short fictitious letters
have been compared to “small poems, neatly structured: he draws a scene in
a few lines and then closes it off with a clever twist or moral.”99
Theophylact’s collection of 85 letters includes three different categories:
moralizing, rustic, and courtesan letters (@
# Ð=$, <$,
¡
$), sorted according to the principle of variatio.100 There are twenty
of these in Gr 8, representing all three categories: ten on ethical matter, three
letters where Theophylact gives voice to farmers, and seven letters on cour-
tesans (Text 43).101 What becomes apparent as one reads Theophylact’s
letters is the way the author creates something new by stretching a traditional
theme or topos a bit further, toppling the story in a comical direction.102 To
give an example, the subject matter of Ep. 16 seems at first glance rather
dull: don’t take loans, don’t buy on tick, and you’ll be free and happy. The
joke does not appear until we remember to check who sent it and to whom:
the sender is Gorgias, who is reputed to have become vastly affluent from
his sophistic teaching; he was criticized for wanting to make money by
deceiving the public with misleading arguments.103 The addressee Aristeides,
99
MOFFATT 1984, 345.
100
The sequence is such that every third letter is moralizing, every third rustic, and likewise
with the courtesan letters. Since the collection begins and ends with moralizing letters, there
are all in all 29 of these and 28 letters each of the other two groups. The only exception to the
sequencing is Epp. 26–27, though they may have just swapped places in the manuscript tradi-
tion (cf. MOFFATT 1984, 348; according to Zanetto, the wrong sequence of Epp. 26–27 was
present already in the archetype; in four manuscripts it has been corrected to the more logical
sequence with regard to contents 25–27–26–28; ZANETTO 1985, xxv). Adriana Pignani also
breaks the sequencing by putting Ep. 20 in the courtesan group, epistole amorosi (PIGNANI
1979–80, 51; Moffatt, as above, n. 14, suggests likewise), but the letter must first and fore-
most count as a rustic one: one farmer writes to another complaining that the girl he is court-
ing does not love him back. He had just sent her wild pears as a gift, “but she threw away the
thread and rose from the loom, took the pears and gave to the pigs.” With amusing result
Theophylact combines the epistolary topos of gifts accompanying letters and the topoi in love
letters of blind fate and torturing erotes. The clash between the farmer’s anguish (“But I cry!
Terrible Eros has wronged me...”) and the picture of the girl throwing his precious pears to the
hogs, is downright funny.
101
Simoc Epp. 1, 3–4, 9–10, 13–19, 26, 29, 34, 37, 46, 60–61, 66. Epp. 14, 17, and 29 are
rustic; Epp. 3, 9, 15, 18, 26, 60, and 66 are courtesan letters. The most recent editor of Simo-
kates’ letters, Giuseppe Zanetto, has not mentioned Gr 8 in his surveys of manuscripts and did
not include any account of these letters in his editorial work, most likely because he could not
know about them: Graux’s catalog is entirely silent, Torallas Tovar gave the incipit but no
identification (cf. ZANETTO 1976; ZANETTO 1982b; ZANETTO 1985). The selection of letters in
Gr 8 does not correspond to that of any other known manuscript (cf. ZANETTO 1982b, Appen-
dice II), but a preliminary collation of the texts indicates that Gr 8 is related to Zanetto’s
“familia a” (which, in Zanetto’s stemma, is made up of Par. gr. 690, Par. gr. 2991A, Vat.
Urb. gr. 134, and Ambros. A 115 sup.; ZANETTO 1985, xxiii).
102
Cf. ZANETTO 1982a.
103
SPRAGUE 1972, 31. Cf. Diod. Sic. 12. 53, on Gorgias’ enormous fees; Paus. 10. 18, 7, on
his statue of gold in Delphi; Ael. Var. 12. 32, on his purpurean clothes.
145
on the other hand, is remembered for his righteousness, never seeking

benefits for his own sake. “Of all his virtues, it was his justice that most im-
pressed the multitude. [...] Wherefore, though poor and a man of the people,
he acquired that most kingly and godlike surname of ‘The Just.’”104 Theo-
phylact thus twists the subject around: the arguments in the letter seem
sound enough, but in the mouth of a swindler they get another tinge. A letter
which appeared to be about living beyond one’s means, becomes a challenge
to the reader, who must ask her- or himself: who is the real crook here?
Unfortunately, in Gr 8 no captions to Theophylact’s letters were inserted:
thus a reader may have missed out on some of the fun here. When Theodoros
copied the letters though, he probably did have access to a more complete
model, because he left just enough room for a title at the beginning of U9,
and for rubricated captions to be inserted at each letter. This rubrication was
never carried out, but we can see in the manuscript that later readers did
partake of these cultivated and also very enjoyable letters.105 They have tried,
with poor result, to supply some short-titles: Ep. 3, for example, is intro-
duced by

<

, and Ep. 16 is called

_
.
John Tzetzes’ letter to John Lachanas is included in Gr 8 together with
the commentary excerpts from the Chiliades (Text 42), and begins with the
statement that the letter displays the three forms of speech: judiciary, horta-
tory, and festive speech.106 The remark that “through the stories (

Á
$) it delivers praise of some people and blame of others,” is to the
point, since Tzetzes’ letter seems to be more of a catalog of exempla than a
real act of communication.107 “With these things you can embellish, Zabarei-
otan Lachanas: Kroisos on riches, Midas on gold, … Narkissos on beauty,
Orpheus on music,” Tzetzes sets off, and then he just carries on and on with
all his references to ancient tales. To cast this in the form of a letter in fif-
teen-syllable verse seems rather bizarre.
104
Plut. Arist. 6. 1; trans. Perrin. Herodotos calls Aristeides “the best and most just man in
Athens” (Hdt 8. 79).
105
That Theophylact really strove to chisel out the form of the letters is obvious from Theodor
Nissen’s article, where Nissen brings the nineteenth-century editor Rudolph Hercher to the
book, showing that his “emendations” had broken up the prose-rhythm of Theophylact’s
clause endings (NISSEN 1932). Cf., however, Wolfram Hörandner, who argues that Nissen
may in some cases have gone too far in his defense of Theophylact, through adding new
conjectures rythmi gratia (HÖRANDNER 1981, 82).
106
John Lachanas was a contemporary colleague to Tzetzes, a teacher who apparently got an
appointment at the " , the arsenal of Constantinople. Yet another letter from Tzetzes
to Lachanas is extant (Ep. 105), but here he is called diakonos instead of grammatikos. The
Archbishop Eustathios of Thessalonike also sent a letter to Lachanas (GRÜNBART 1996, 222,
n. 245).
107
¹
+ @
#¤
\_

¯ º
¯¨ ¼ + <
> ¾ $ ,
>
> ¿
¨ ¼ + ,
> "#
¨
> <, ¼
Á
$
+ @<%
,
+
@}\ (Gr 8, f. 217r).
146
Rhetorical texts
Text 72, the letter from Nikephoros Gregoras to the Grand Logothete Me-
tochites was discussed above, among the oratory works.
Letters from humanist circles

Texts 24, 25a–c, 26
Five letters in Gr 8 saw their origin in the humanist circle of Plethon and
Cardinal Bessarion in the 1450s or a little later. They are transmitted in se-
quence in the manuscript, on ff. 162–173. The first letter was written by
George Gemistos Plethon shortly before his death in 1452 and is addressed
to George Scholarios (Text 24). Its contents reflect one of the large intellec-
tual controversies of the time: the supremacy of Plato’s or Aristotle’s teach-
ings. George Scholarios (soon to become Patriarch of Ottoman Constantin-
ople under the name of Gennadios II) had already written a pamphlet in fa-
vor of Aristotle, and Plethon now sends him his objections. Our manuscript
does not reproduce the entire letter, merely the introductory paragraph where
Plethon criticizes Scholarios for not sending him his pamphlet and for lying
about this; Plethon asserts that having now acquired part of it by other
means, he clearly sees Scholarios’ ignorance and unsound train of thought.
Plethon is quite offensive and ridicules Scholarios.108
Though there are other philosophical and theological texts in Gr 8
(Plethon’s treatise On Virtues is presented in full, just to mention one exam-
ple), in this case the subject matter of the treatise does not seem to have been
the scribe’s first priority. Choosing only the rhetorically juicy part of the
introduction must have filled another function: was it for the mere fun of it?
Did Theodoros think it useful as a model in his own rhetorical or authorial
enterprise? The position of the text in the codicological unit does not provide
any definite clue on this. Preceded by Plethon’s On Virtues, it begins in the
middle of a verso page and ends in the middle of the next page, and the texts
which follow belong to the same cultural setting (on these, see more below).
Supposing the main arguments of this philosophical controversy were famil-
iar to a professional scribe like Theodoros—and there is nothing which
speaks against that—it is quite plausible that he made a deliberate selection
of this psogos part of the treatise.
Cardinal Bessarion’s correspondence includes both private letters of per-
sonal, literary, or philosophical content, and official letters and reports.109
108
Plethon’s offensiveness is more understandable when seen against the background of a
long period of disagreement between the two men. Already during the Council of Florence
they were avid opponents in church matters as well as in their philosophical outlook. In fact,
when Plethon first wrote his treatise on the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s
conceptions of God (On the differences), it was George Scholarios who convinced Emperor
Manuel II Palaiologos that Plethon had rendered himself guilty of heresy, and when Plethon’s
Book of Laws finally came into Scholarios’ hands, he arranged to have it burnt (MOHLER
1923, 204). On Plethon’s and Scholarios’ views of Aristotle, see further KARAMANOLIS 2002.
109
Bessarion’s correspondence has been collected and edited by Ludwig Mohler (MOHLER
1942).
147
The three letters in Gr 8 (Text 25) all belong to the first category. Ep. 22,
written shortly after Plethon’s death in 1452, is addressed to the two sons of
Plethon, Demetrios and Andronikos. It is a letter of condolence and venera-
tion: Bessarion eulogizes his teacher Plethon as the most admirable man in
Greece, who in himself had Plato’s soul come down to earthly life anew.
Epp. 49–50, though written some ten years later, are actually closely con-
nected to the Plethon-text we have just encountered above. The controversy
between Aristotelians and Platonics continued after Plethon’s last word was
said,110 and one of the scholars who wrote yet another defense of Aristotle
against Plethon’s ideas was Theodore Gazes. His treatise is not extant, but
we still have Bessarion’s reply to it.111 On another occasion Gazes opposed
Plethon’s critique on the Aristotelian category of “substance.”112 Gazes’
views were furthermore attacked by Michael Apostoles, and he, in his turn,
was rebutted through Andronikos Kallistos’ writings.113 Bessarion was con-
vinced that no inherent opposition was to be found between Plato’s and Aris-
totle’s teachings, and he tried to mediate in this heated debate, both through
his own reconciliatory treatises, and through personal addresses to people
involved. This is where the other two letters in Gr 8 come in.
Ep. 49 is the reprimand Bessarion sent to Michael Apostoles, scolding
him for his youthfully injudicious comments on Gazes’ treatise.114 “One
should not abuse one’s opponents; rather, it is by providing proof and logical
arguments that one should both support a friend and defend oneself against
the enemy,” he says. “If indeed Plethon has flung mud at Aristotle, and if
Theodore has done it with Plethon, and if you have spoken ill of Theodore,
then all things said seem to me to be past reason and need. For it is not pos-
sible to reproach Aristotle who has done us so much good; neither Plethon
who is wise and a truly good man (well, if it were not for the fact that he
started the abuse and those who defend themselves could be granted some
pardon...).” One could argue that here we have the key to why the scribe
110
So much so, that even after half a century there was a scholar who composed a critique of
Aristotle and had it published under the pseudonym of Pletho himself. On this late and some-
what misdirected support of Pletho written by the Augustinian friar Nicolaus Scutellius, see
further MONFASANI 2005.
111
MOHLER 1942, 88–90. Theodore Gazes (ca. 1400–1475) was born in Thessalonica but fled
to Italy in 1430. He took part in the Church Council at Florence-Ferrara, and as the successor
of Nicholas Sagundino (on him, see more below) he taught Greek in Ferrara in 1440–1449.
He also enjoyed the patronage of King Alfonso of Naples and spent his last years in Calabria,
translating Greek texts into Latin. Aristotle was one of the authors to whom he dedicated his
translating efforts (GEANAKOPLOS 1989, 68–90).
112
MOHLER 1942, 153–58.
113
MONFASANI 1992, 238. For the contributions by Michael Apostoles and Andronikos Kal-
listos, see MOHLER 1942, 159–203.
114
This letter was written at Viterbo’s thermal baths and is dated °ô > @
>

·<
, > ²
^ " (Gr 8, f. 167r). This ought to refer to the night between
the ninth and tenth of May. Cf. however Mohler: “Der Brief stammt vom 19. Mai 1462”
(MOHLER 1942, 511; the edited text, p. 513, reads @
>
Õ).
148
Rhetorical texts
Theodoros included only the psogos part of Plethon’s letter (Text 24): the
offensive tone in that part of Plethon’s letter is precisely what Bessarion
refers to in Ep. 49.
Bessarion defends Plethon as a thinker even though he does not agree
with his views, and the instructions he gives to Apostoles are plain: “If you
wish to obey me, you should hold both Aristotle and Plato as the wisest,
follow them in their tracks, and make each of them your guide.”115 Bessarion
uses the rest of the letter to further explicate his arguments for this, and also
to explain why Theodore Gazes and Andronikos Kallistos are to be com-
mended for their contributions to the debate. Bessarion also exhorted Apos-
toles to learn from Andronikos. Apparently Bessarion then decided to send
Andronikos Kallistos a copy of Ep. 49, because Ep. 50 is just a short note
which he attached: “From Cardinal Bessarion to Andronikos Kallistos, to
study. I read both what Michael confusingly had composed against Theodore
and your criticism of him. I have delivered my verdict and vote on them, and
I now send you a copy of what he received. For it is neither necessary nor
easy for one who has been charmed, to write more extensively to you. (I also
put down from where and when I sent it to Michael).”
The next letter in Gr 8 also comments on the writings of Theodore Gazes
and Michael Apostoles. It was sent to the same Andronikos Kallistos from
Nicholas Sagundino (Text 26). Sagundino—in Greek Sekoundinós—was a
Venetian from Negroponte (Euboia) who had been taken prisoner by the
Ottomans when they sacked Thessalonica in 1430. Thanks to his linguistic
skills he served as interpreter at the Council of Florence-Ferrara, where he
also made Bessarion’s acquaintance.116 With the exception of only four let-
ters, his extant correspondence is written in Latin.117 The letter to Andronikos
Kallistos was sent from Viterbo in early June 1462, and Sagundino definitely
sides with Theodore Gazes and Andronikos Kallistos against Michael Apos-
115
õ
÷ @ Ó=Õ, £#Ñ
% |

Ò# }%
Ñ
<Ô ,
’ _

Ô
¡× , ¡Ñ
< ×

^ ^. Gr 8 has =Õ instead of Ó=Õ, but
that reading is clearly wrong.
116
Already from these few letters of Greek humanist scholars, it is obvious how closely knit
this community was. We have met some of these names already in Chapter 3 (especially
persons who worked as scribes on commission of Bessarion and others; Michael Apostoles,
Michael Souliardos, Antonios Damilas). Another entry to this circle of colleagues and friends,
several of whom had originally met at Florence-Ferrara, is offered us in Text 81 (see Chapter
5). The position as interpreter at the Council was first offered to Francesco Filelfo, who had to
renounce it for political reasons. The skillfulness of Nicholas Sagundino, however, is well
attested: he could translate the speeches of both parties straight off in the Council sessions
(MOHLER 1923, 123).
117
The edition of this letter is still the one made by Boissonade in 1833 (reprinted by Migne,
PG 161, 691–696). Another Greek letter of Sagundino’s was edited by Mastrodemetres
(MASTRODEMETRES 1965). According to Mastrodemetres’ survey, the letter from Sagundino
to Andronikos Kallistos is extant in fifteen manuscripts, but he did not include Gr 8 among
them (MASTRODEMETRES 1970, 149–154). Sagundino also wrote a treatise on the “rules” of
Greek and Latin letter-writing, “De epistolari dicendi genere” (MASTRODEMETRES 1970, 129).
149
toles.118 That he is more verbose than Bessarion is also clear; in the eleven
manuscript pages that his letter covers in Gr 8 he says less than Bessarion
did in half the space.
One text which definitely belongs to the subject of epistolography, but on
a more practical level, is Text 81. Moreover, it also gives some interesting
perspectives on people connected with Bessarion’s network of humanists.
This text is a mid-fifteenth century collection of letter-headings, a formulary
which provides instructions mainly on how to address public officials of
various kinds. Text 81 is dealt with more thoroughly in Chapter 5, below.
Why these letters in Gr 8?

To wrap up this overview of letters in Gr 8, we may benefit from a list on
where they are situated:
U3 Text 7 (Gregory of Nazianzos) narrative

Text 8 (Hippocrates) d:o
Text 9 (Anacharsis) d:o
U4 Text 11b (Diocles) medical
U6 Text 24 (Plethon) polemic

Text 25 (Bessarion) humanist and pacifist
Text 26 (Sagundino) d:o
Text 36 (Isidore) d:o
U8 Text 42 (Tzetzes) in verse; instructive
U9 Text 43 (Simokates) moral, rustic, and amatory
U13 Text 67 (Basil) personal; models

Text 68 (Libanios & Basil) d:o
Text 69 (Gregory of Nazianzos) d:o
Text 70 (Basil) d:o
Text 72 (Gregoras) display
U15 Text 81 (formulary) practical
As we have seen above, there are letters of many different kinds in Gr 8, and
presumably they ended up in the manuscript for a number of reasons. The
118
The town of Viterbo is known as a Papal resort, both due to its stout walls which gave
refuge in times of strife, and its hot springs which were thought to be beneficial for the Pope’s
health. In 1462 Pope Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini, 1405–1464) went to Viterbo seeking
relief for his gout, and Nicholas Sagundino, who was the Pope’s secretary at the time, appar-
ently accompanied him there (MASTRODEMETRES 1964, 254).
150
Philosophical and theological texts
sheer reading experience must not be overlooked: there are more than a few
examples of amusing and intriguing subject matter. The skill with which
many of the letters were wrought would have contributed to the pleasure of
reading as well: the polished language form, the rythmical clause endings,
the disguised or open allusions to other literary works, et cetera. This would
also have made the letters suitable as models if one were to create letters of
one’s own. The epistolary production of authors like Libanios, Basil the
Great, and Gregory of Nazianzos soon became models of style, and they
remained so throughout the Byzantine period and even beyond.119 These late
antique letters were all placed as a group by Theodoros, in U13 (one letter by
Gregory excepted). In that same unit we also find Nikephoros Gregoras’
letter. The ancient fictitious letters are placed in U3, in close proximity to
other narrative works, and they probably functioned as such, too. Gregory of
Nazianzos’ Ep. 114, also in U3, may easily be regarded as that kind of text
as well, with its focus on fables and stories. The Anacharsis letters also dis-
play similarities in subject matter to Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus, as both
deal with paraenetics (advice on how to lead a virtuous life and how to gov-
ern justly), and these go together in the same codicological unit.
Tzetzes’ letter does not really strike one as a letter: the contents are too
much of a catalog, and the direct addressing of the letter’s recipient is vague.
This text together with the commentary to it (Chiliades) make up U8, and
they are immediately followed by the collection of Simokates’ letters in U9.
The humanist letters, from the circle of Plethon and Bessarion, are also
placed as a group and follow upon another text by Plethon: On Virtues. One
could argue that these were included because they reflect the philosophical
debates in the Quattrocento, but they are also interesting as specimens of
derogatory letter-writing, either in themselves or as comments on other of-
fensive writings. These letters are situated in U6, where we also have other
fifteenth-century writings, by Mark Eugenikos (Texts 30–31). In the same
unit, U6, we come across the two letters by Isidore of Pelousion, interesting
for their strong viewpoints on warfare and on a soldier’s career.
It seems quite clear that Theodoros’ organization of his book, or at least
of the contents inside each codicological unit, was very much premeditated.
We are thus encouraged to give some respect to miscellaneous manuscripts
like Gr 8: the first impression may be that a book looks disorganized and
confused, but it may be worth the effort to try to look beneath the surface.

The philosophical texts in Gr 8 can roughly be divided into three groups: a)
the ancient or early Byzantine works, authored by Gregory Thaumatourgos,
119
Cf. GRÜNBART 2007, 129.
151
John Philoponos, and Theodoret of Kyrros; b) anonymous works, therefore

precarious to date; c) late Byzantine works, mainly by George Gemistos
Plethon. A common denominator in many of these texts is the focus on the
soul: what is a soul, how can it be defined, described, analyzed? However,
the fact that these—undeniably philosophical—questions are discussed and
answered in accordance with Christian beliefs blurs the distinction between
philosophical and theological texts, and this is why I have decided to treat
the philosophical and theological items in combination. According to
Katerina Ierodiakonou, the general tendency nowadays is to allow for a clear
dividing line between Byzantine theology and philosophy.120 But it is one
thing to look at the situation in institutional education (where, for example in
Italy, philosophy was always linked with medicine and was unrelated to
theology), and another to ask what an individual makes of his interests in
different areas. Thus there were many a theologian during these centuries
who took an interest in philosophical matters. In addition, the roles of eccle-
siastics and lay persons were not always separated: one and the same person
could be a teacher in one period of his life and a servant of the Church in
another.121
Whether it is feasible to raise partition-walls between philosophy and the-
ology must also depend on which questions are at stake in the philosophical
discussion, and, at least for our treatment of Gr 8, the combination of these
categories is functional: we will start out with the texts which may count as
“hardcore philosophy,” and then work our way over to more strictly theo-
logical turf, ending with devotional matter.
Cosmology according to the ancient philosophers

Text 56
Needless to say, Theodoret had an agenda as a Christian author and a bishop:
in his work Cure of the Pagan Maladies (Text 56) he wanted to show the
superiority of Christian doctrine over the Greek thinkers of old.122 In this
process he presented a long line of ancient philosophers together with some
of their viewpoints. Xenophanes and Parmenides on the perpetual unity and
immutability of the cosmos: if it is everlasting, Theodoret objects, then it is
without beginning and without cause, and that cannot be; the belief in a
120
IERODIAKONOU 2002, 2. On the comparable situation regarding boundaries between phi-
losophy and theology in Western Europe, cf. also KRISTELLER 1979, 42.
121
A peculiar turn of the arguments occured in Plethon’s and George Scholarios’ polemic
against each other: Scholarios, the theologian, argued that it was a defect in Plato to mix
different disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, and theology, while the philosopher Ple-
thon stated in his reply that “disciplines which are incomplete require other disciplines which
are more complete to supplement them”; thus, as geometry needed arithmetics, “physics and
ethics would never be complete without theology” (WOODHOUSE 1986, 46; Scholarios, Contra
Plethonis ignorationem de Aristotele iv, 83; for Plethon’s reply, see PG 160, 993B).
122
Thdt, Affect 4.5–16; 4.32–42; 5.8–52; and 6.11–26 are included in Gr 8 on ff. 262r–278v.
152
Creator must prevail (no need to add here that the discussion of the “first
cause” has continued throughout the centuries and no less so in the fifteenth
century, with its concern to link Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy to
Christian dogmas). One may be tempted to put Theodoret’s argument down
to Scriptural influence, but he may actually just as well be referring to
Plato.123 Theodoret proceeds with Democritus’ theory of the void and the
solid, Metrodorus of Chios on the undivided, and so forth. The fifth element
is mentioned in passing, form and matter discussed at length (the name-
dropping naturally includes Plato and Aristotle, but also Xenocrates, Thales,
Heracleitus, Pythagoras, Epicurus, Crates, Zeno, and many more). Now, how
could these philosophers be right and trustworthy about cosmos, when “they
not only disagree vehemently with each other but also at the same time bor-
row from each other,” Theodoret argues.124
In the next excerpt in Gr 8, Theodoret does refer to Plato’s Timaeus and
Republic, commending some of Plato’s theories on cosmological matters and
challenging others. As for the excerpting technique, the joint was apparently
skillfully wrought, rendering the omission of paragraphs 17–31 nigh to unde-
tectable. Having mentioned Aëtius, Plutarch, Porphyry, and Xenophon in
§ 31, Theodoret says “but all of these I leave aside, instead focussing on
Plato” (Thdt, Affect 4.32). In the excerpt of Gr 8, <Ë +
+ ·##
Ã
# Ó®% has become <Ë +
·##,
#., which here
comes to serve as a reference to all the ancient philosophers mentioned in the
preceding excerpt. It is also intriguing to see that the excerpt in Gr 8 only
includes those Platonic ideas which Theodoret approved of. Shortly after the
break, in § 4.45, Theodoret continues with those Platonic theories that did
not harmonize with his own views, but that part was omitted by the excerp-
tor. Whether our scribe Theodoros was responsible for this selection himself
or got it from a model manuscript, it is still food for thought that someone at
the time, in the century which had seen so much debate on Aristotle versus
Plato, took pains to collect and include arguments for one side only—the one
pro Plato.
The two remaining passages from Theodoret treat human nature and fate.
The purpose is still to establish how the Christian views differ from the phi-
losophers’ (©
> Ò

= Ó%
}#×}% <Ñ
%, §
5.8). The greater part of the opinions of poets and philosophers is dis-
carded,125 but Plato’s teaching is, once more, seen as rewarding, although
123
On the opinion that nothing comes into being without cause, and that we therefore must
reckon with a creator, a demiurge, see Pl. Tim. 28a–29a.
124
Thdt, Affect 4.15: Â × + @
Ô
}%Óø < # Ó
Õ, ##
·##
@_ò
.
125
Aristotle gets a real scolding in §§ 5.46–47: not only did he set himself up in opposition
while Plato was still alive, showing no respect, but recklessly adopted views which were very
much inferior (##Î < _ $ _ <), such as the soul purportedly being
mortal and the earth being deprived of God’s providence.
153
mainly as a presentiment of the full truth found in the Scripture. As we will

see below, the subjects of the soul, reason, free will, and fate are brought up
for discussion in other texts in Gr 8 as well.
The soul
Texts 6, 53, 57, (59), 60
Most of the philosophical texts in Gr 8 focus on problems which in a way
may be said to be timeless, but which were fervently discussed by fifteenth-
century humanists: the immortal human soul, and the question of fate and
predestination.126 We have already seen this in the passages from Theo-
doret’s Cure (Text 56), and the fact that these subjects were elaborated on
both with and without religious overtones is not surprising. One anonymous
text on the soul is found on ff. 254r–256v (Text 53); perhaps it was even
composed by the scribe Theodoros himself?127 “The views we hold on the
soul and its essence we expound in this wise,” it begins,128 and the subject is
then developed in several hierarchical stages, illustrated at the end of the text
with diagrams of “theories on the soul” (
®_¯ = %\%), its
properties, faculties, perceptions, states of mind, et cetera.129 The text, which
is easily comprehensible thanks to its structure, may have been compiled for
teaching purposes (or for someone who needed to sort out these matters for
his own sake). To some extent its contents overlap with the explications on
the soul in Texts 16–17; on these, see more below. It is also reminiscent of
Theodoret’s outline in §§ 5.19–22 of the Cure, although in the case of Theo-
doret a synopsis is given of the views of several philosophers (Pythagoras,
Plato, Xenocrates, Aristotle, the Stoics), whereas in Text 53 the intention
seems to be to create a coherent stance on the soul and its properties. An-
other difference is that in Text 53 there are no references whatsoever to in-
disputedly Christian ideas. A micro-text which also treats the soul and its
faculties is Text 6. This, too, is non-committal as to Christian ideas, but there
126
On the immortality of the soul, which became “one of the most important and characteris-
tic themes of Renaissance philosophy,” see KRISTELLER 1979, 181–196. Evidence of the
ongoing debate on fate is found in Plethon’s treatise %+ (PG 160, 961–964); in
several treatises on predestination and fate by George Scholarios (PETIT et al. 1928, 390–460);
in Cardinal Bessarion’s correspondence with Plethon (Epp. 18–20; MOHLER 1942, 455–465),
in Bessarion’s own treatise In calumniatorem Platonis III, 30–31; MOHLER 1927, 418–421);
and in Matthew Kamariotes’ two orations, were he attacked Plethon’s treatise (MONFASANI
1976, 207). Several of the Italian humanists also contributed to the discussion, among them
Marsiglio Ficino (see further KELLER 1957).
127
A passage in the text purportedly refers to Plato (

Õ

¹
##
@$% ~ £#
% @#
¤

%¬), but the phrasing does not seem to
have its origin there. It may derive from Theophylact Simokates’ Ep. 37; in Gr 8 this letter is
included on f. 230r.
128
Í + _ ®_¯
¯ $
¯ @
$= { . A rubricated head-
ing was meant to precede this sentence, but was never put in.
129
For a transcription of Text 53, see Appendix 1.
154
are nevertheless close parallels in patristic authors as well as in ancient

texts.130
Text 57 (inc.
#\_ ) is a less lucid text which treats the concept of
entelechy, the forming, governing principle of matter. The subject is treated
by several Aristotelian commentators on De Anima (Alexander of Aphro-
disias, John Philoponos, Simplikios), but the text in Gr 8 seems to be un-
known. Since it is not very coherently written, it should perhaps rather be
taken as notes, or a rough draft. In the manuscript the text follows directly on
the passages from Theodoret’s Cure of the Pagan Maladies, and, since en-
telechy is treated also in that text, albeit briefly,131 it seems that there was a
thought behind the arrangement of these texts on the part of our scribe Theo-
doros. Perhaps one could even suppose it to be Theodoros’ own notes,
brought in as an afterthought to Theodoret’s text. Text 57 is an attempt to
define and explain the concept linguistically, but also by illustrating the full
realization of a human being: a human being is an entelechy not when he as
an embryo lives in the womb, still being formed and perfected, but when he
is detached and brought forth, consummated according to the human form
( ¿). Thus, the soul is defined as the full realization of the physical, in-
strumental body, which (in itself only) has the potentiality () for life.
That is what Aristotle says in De Anima 412a 27, and also what Theodoret
refers to. But Theodoret equated entelecheia with energeia, actuality/ac-
tivity, whereas in Text 57 this identity is denied. This may be an indication
that it is Theodoros himself who wishes to comment upon and correct Theo-
doret’s version. The last sentence of Text 57, $ @
#\_
#\<
, Ä< *# @\< , may seem a bit unrelated to the rest of the
account, but it could be a way of supplementing the definition through an-
other reference to Aristotle.132 As for entelecheia and energeia, Aristotle is
admittedly vague on the distinction,133 although in the Metaphysics the two
terms are subtly distinguished, so as to make energeia “tend toward” or “im-
plicate” entelecheia, i.e. complete reality.134 It may be of interest that the
concept of $ was explicitly brought up also in the Quattrocento con-
130
The text, which was put as a page filler after Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus (or. 1), is
unpretentious and short enough to have been passed down in florilegia. A similar passage is
found, e.g., in Jo. Dam. virt., PG 95, 85B–C. Text 6 is included in Appendix 1.
131
Thdt, Affect 5.17–18: ~ +
< Ó
@
#Ò_ å
å
}^ ¾<^,
Ñ %¤ _
· @
#Ò_ +
¤ @Ò< Ò# .
132
Aristotle’s definition is somewhat modified:
’ Ó @
#Ò_
^
#ò
(Ar. Phys. 257b). Cf. also Ar. Metaph. 1066a.
133
Cf. Pierre Canivet’s comment on Theodoret’s definition: “Quant à l’identité que Théodoret
établit entre les termes @
#\_ et @\< , elle est assez conforme à l’usage du philoso-
phe, qui ‘emploie indifféremment les deux termes’” (Canivet 1958, 231, n. 4, referring to J.-
M. Le Blond, Logique et Méthode chez Aristote, Paris, 1939, p. 429).
134
Ar. Metaph. 1047a: @#ò#= ’ @Ò<
û, >
¤ @
#Ò_
= Ò,
@
·## @
ò % Ñ#
¨ < @Ò< Ñ#
Ó ¿. Ar.
Metaph. 1050a:
> < <
Ò#, + @Ò<
> <, >
û @Ò< #Ò<

> <
Ó >
¤ @
#Ò_ .
155
troversy on Plato and Aristotle. In his Defense of Aristotle, George Schola-

rios argued that the verb meant not only “to move” but also “to
make,” as in making something change from non-existence to existence,
from potentiality to actuality; Plethon disagreed with this linguistic shift in
meaning.135
A text that represents philosophy at an elementary level is Text 60 (inc.
<`>

_$
@ ^ Á =<). It follows upon an enu-
meration of the Seven Sages and the maxims ascribed to them,136 and since
these sages were at times—although not explicitly in Text 59—also seen as
great inventors, Text 60 seems like a spontaneous addition to that text:
The Pythagoreans, too, invented corresponding categories, ten in number to

which every existing thing can be referred as to ten elements: good – bad; fi-
nite – infinite; excessive – well-fitted; unity – plurality; right – left; light –
darkness; male – female; being at rest – moving; straight – curved; square –
oblong. And yet another eight opposites which are said to pervade through all
bodies, being original and common: warmth – coldness; humidity – draught;
lightness – heaviness; softness – harshness; elasticity – brittleness; smooth-
ness – roughness; thinness – thickness; porousness – denseness. Three kinds
(of measurement): measuring the line, the surface, the solid. Of these the first
is about length, the other about length and width, and the last about all three
dimensions. Five forms (to measure): square, triangular, rhombic, trapezium,
circular.137
Gregory Thaumatourgos et sqq.

Texts 16–19
With these texts we return once more to one of the more ponderous philoso-
phical topics: the soul. When discussing dividing lines between philosophy
and theology, it may be instructive to take a look at a part of the manuscript,
that is somewhat ambiguous in its structure: ff. 128–138. From a codicologi-
cal viewpoint there is a coherence here, at least from the way the section is
laid out with rubricated initials and titles/subtitles. Nevertheless, it seemed
sensible to catalog it as four different texts, due to their origin and content.
Conceivably, the break between Texts 18 and 19 was less necessary, but we
will come back to that in a moment. The first text starts with an attribution to
135
Scholarios, Contra Plethonis ignorationem de Aristotele iv, 28; Plethon, Contra Gennadii
defensionem Aristotelis, in PG 160, 1008); cf. WOODHOUSE 1986, 247 and 290.
136
The selection of sages in Gr 8 corresponds to Diogenes Laërtes’ list in Lives of the Phi-
losophers i. 13. Cf. also i. 41–42, on other possible constellations of sages.
137
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1. Although this specific text seems to be unknown, there
are numerous parallels to its different parts in other commentaries. See, for example, Alex.
Aphr., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria, ed. Hayduck, 41. 32–38; Sophonias, In Aris-
totelis libros de anima paraphrasis, ed. Hayduck, 101. 14–16; Ar. Metaph. 986a 22–26;
Heron, Geometrica, 3. 18–22.
156
Gregory Thaumatourgos: ^ *<$ <$

^
<^
®_¯.138 The other three texts follow in sequence, with only subtitles and no
attributions, so as to suggest that Theodoros copied the whole lot as if it were
a work by Gregory Thaumatourgos. Yet, the author of the second part (Text
17) is in fact John Philoponos, and the next two items are anonymous and
seem to be unknown. The first two texts are more philosophical in kind, the
latter two lean toward theology.
Let us first look at Text 16. The preamble following the title is truncated
at the beginning compared to the edited text (PG 10, 1137–1145), but it
gives no impression of incompleteness: “A discourse on the soul, with con-
secution and order such as those who are experts in these matters have em-
ployed towards those who desire to investigate the matter intelligently.”139
These lines are analogous to the last four lines of column 1137 in Migne’s
reprint of Vossius’ edition (PG 10, 1137–1145). What was lost from the
preceding section is the personal address to (the otherwise unknown) Tatian,
and the explanation why Gregory chose to use non-Scriptural vocabulary to
elucidate important facts about the soul, although he writes to Tatian who is
also a Christian; Tatian had apparently asked for precisely such advice, since
he needed to use these arguments when confronting pagans, i.e., without
resorting to the testimonies of Scripture (although that would be a method
which, “to those who seek a pious mind, proves a manner of setting forth
doctrine more convincing than any reasoning of man”).140 The treatise deals
with seven questions on the subject of the soul: 1) by what criterion can the
soul be apprehended? 2) by what means can it be proven to exist? 3) is it a
substance or an accident? 4) is it a body or incorporeal? 5) is it simple or
compound? 6) is it mortal or immortal? 7) is it rational or irrational?
Text 17 consists of a number of excerpts from John Philoponos’ Com-
mentary to Aristotle’s De Anima.141 Once again, the soul is in focus. This
time the issues are: the incorporeality of the soul (since it holds the body
together); the senses (also incorporeal, since they can perceive opposites at
the same time through the same sense); the mind (incorporeal and more ad-
vanced than the senses, since the senses do not know anything about them-
selves and do not seek that knowledge, whereas the mind does); faculties and
actualities (and their corporeality); the soul as eternal and separable from the
138
Gregory Thaumatourgos, or the Wonderworker, was a student of Origen who later became
bishop of Neocaesarea, Pontos (ca. 213 – ca. 270 CE). He wrote a panegyric on his teacher,
and a small number of his theological works are extant.
139
µ×< ®_¯ #=Óø

Ñ ¼ @_ò
Á
^
>

@
×%
@=Ò#
.
140
English translation by S.D.F. Salmond in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ROBERTS &
DONALDSON 1986, VI 54–56).
141
On the extent of the excerpts in Hayduck’s edition, see Appendix 2. John Philoponos (ca.
490 – ca. 570) taught science and philosophy in Alexandria and was a prolific author of works
which criticize both Neoplatonist and Aristotelian concepts. He contributed innovative hy-
potheses of his own, for example on dynamics (SORABJI 1987, 7–16).
157
body; perishables are destroyed by dissolution or fire, but since it was

proven that the soul is incorporeal and separate from the body, it will not be
destroyed either way. The excerpting procedure has compressed the account
compared to Philoponos’ original work, but it was done intelligently, so that
the summarized text of Gr 8 seems neatly knit together. And yet, very few
deviations were made from Philoponos’ own wording: a couple of }$
(“he says”) were dropped, something which would make the text seem more
like an authoritarian statement and less of a neutral recounting of someone
else’s viewpoints.
When it comes to Texts 18–19, one may hesitate whether it would not
have been possible to itemize these as one combined text instead of two. In
the transition between Texts 18 and 19 there is nothing in the layout which
announces that a new text begins, not even a subtitle.142 The two texts are
similar to each other in language and expression, but they treat slightly dif-
ferent subjects. Thus, I suspect that they may have come from the same
original treatise, or at least to have been composed by the same author. But
since I cannot prove this, I abide by what was said about codicological units
in the preceding chapter: it is better to keep them apart if the evidence is
unclear. Consequently, although it is possible that the two texts are related, I
have left this question open, in the hope that the passages may eventually be
identified and the question be settled more definitely.
Text 18 gives an exposé of the carnal, the natural, and the spiritual life.143
What does it mean to live in these states? Those who live carnally are ob-
scured in their thoughts, the clouds of their passions are like high walls
blocking out the beams of the Spirit. They fight over worldly things, privi-
leges and carnal pleasures. Those who live naturally are fools, they are weak,
self-loving, never toiling for virtue but shrinking from blameworthy deeds
because they care what people say. They fuss over their bodies and terrestri-
alize their minds. Being empty of the Holy Spirit there is in them no love of
God nor neighbor, no self-control, no compassion: it is all pride and arro-
gance. The last group, finally, are those who are led by the Spirit of God.
They practice the spiritual life, purging their souls and chastizing their flesh.
By prayer and meditation they fill their minds with light. They transcend to
the things that are beyond sense-perception and receive the wisdom of God.
Thus they become the salt of the earth and the light of the world.144
142
The floriate initial at the outset of Text 19 is the same size as those within Text 18. The
signs that Theodoros uses to announce the end of a text and the end of a paragraph (two dots
and a line) are also the same. The size of these signs may differ, but that has more to do with
the accessible space; one may compare the sign just before Text 19 (f. 137r l. 3) with the sign
inside Text 16, on f. 128v line 10.
143
Inc.

^ "$ ¿ ~ #< # ¨ ¬, ®_¤ -
¬. For the translation of ®_ here as “natural,” cf. 1 Cor. 2:14. This state represents
human life as such without the divine dimension, i.e., body and mind but no spirit.
144
For the Greek text, see Appendix 1.
158
Text 19 picks up what was said in the preceding paragraph, i.e., it further
elucidates the spiritual life and the stages one has to go through on the way
to perfection. The three stages are the purgative, the illuminative, and the
mystical (perfective).145 This is actually what was said at the end of Text 18,
but here the author goes into more detail. The aim of the purgative stage is to
throw off every poison of sin, being smoldered in the ascetic fire, hardened
and tempered in the bath of compunction, thus becoming a sharp and mighty
sword against passions and demons. When one has reached this stage of
passionlessness the illuminative stage follows: here the aim is the word of
wisdom which makes distinct the natures of beings, the recognition of divine
and human affairs, and the revelation of the mysteries of the heavenly king-
dom. The mystical stage is for those who have already run the whole course
and reached the maturity of Christ. Then one rises above everything, draw-
ing close to the first light, searching the depths of God through the Spirit.
The aim is to initiate the one thus perfected into the hidden mysteries of
God.146
The combination of texts only just touched upon shows the intricate
merging of what we may call philosophical inquiries and spiritual guidance.
There is no way to separate the religious sphere from the philosophical. The
outer wisdom ( % }$) was not necessarily on edge with the divine
Word: one read and used Aristotle and Plato as one needed and wished. This
is apparent already in the excerpts from John Philoponos’ commentary on
Aristotle. The question of the mortal soul was a stumbling block in Aris-
totle’s philosophy for Christian thinkers, but although the excerpts above
have Aristotle’s philosophy as a startingpoint, we still end up with an im-
mortal soul separable from the body, contrary to Aristotle’s original views.
This development was apparently facilitated by the fact that the excerptor
picked up Philoponos’ reasoning along the way.
Reverberations from the Ferrara-Florence discussions

Texts 23, (24), 40, 41
Byzantine thinkers continued to relate to Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy,
and the waves of discussion were higher than ever in the middle of the fif-
teenth century, at the time of decline of the Empire. Old arguments were
brought to life in the debates around a possible Church union, at the Council
of Ferrara-Florence in 1438–39, and through the intensified relations be-
tween Byzantine intellectuals, who had a broad education in both
(Neo)Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, and humanists in the West, who
were trained mainly in the scholastic tradition and to whom Plato’s works
145

@
\

# " %¨ =-
¬, }%

¬,
¤
# .
146
See also Appendix 1.
159
had the charm of novelty when they became accessible in new translations.147
In the wake of these debates, theologians in the East and in the West had to
adjust not only to dogmatic discrepancies but also to the different traditions
of interpreting the ancient philosophers. This tension is reflected in treatises
and letters written by many of the great intellectuals of the time: Plethon and
George Scholarios, Bessarion and the circle around him—we have already
met them above in the section on epistolography. I would like to emphasize
one point, though, something which is not always highlighted, but which
George Karamanolis has expressed very clearly:148 George Gemistos Plethon
wrote his treatise against Aristotle’s philosophy (On the differences) not
because he wanted to place himself in opposition to the Christian faith but
because he considered Plato’s philosophy to be closer to Christian doctrine
than Aristotle’s. Scholarios, on the other hand, was undertaking the same
kind of apologetic task, but favoring Aristotle over Plato. This was not a
fight over pagan versus Christian philosophy but a question of which inter-
pretation of the ancient philosophers adhered most closely to Orthodoxy.149
One of the issues that Plethon focused on was precisely the immortality of
the soul. In other treatises Plethon apparently did experiment with more eso-
teric outlooks—Zoroastrian, Pythagorean, Neoplatonic—but the dispute on
Plato versus Aristotle was an internal affair within Christian bounds.150
In addition to the Reply to George Scholarios’ Defense of Aristotle
(Text 24), there are two other works by Plethon in Gr 8: his treatise On Vir-
tues (Text 23), and a treatise on the views of the Roman Church regarding
the procession of the Holy Spirit (Text 40). The latter is clearly related to the
Council discussions, the former perhaps not, although some scholars believe
that it was composed in Italy; at least we know that John Eugenikos made a
copy of it in 1439, on his way home from Ferrara.151 Brigitte Tambrun-
Krasker argues that it may just as well be an earlier work by Plethon.152 On
Virtues was probably intended to befit a general public (as opposed to The
Laws, for example, which was written for the intimate circle of like-minded
147
For a summary of the Plato-Aristotle controversy, see for example MONFASANI 1976, 201–
229.
148
KARAMANOLIS 2002.
149
Cf. also Bessarion’s four-volume treatise In calumniatorem Platonis, where the first subti-
tle of vol. 2 reads as follows: “©

£#
% ## ý
|

\#
³

²
}%^ = $ø” (MOHLER 1927, 80).
150
Plethon had no direct knowledge of either ancient or contemporary zoroastrianism
(WOODHOUSE 1986, 63). The limitation of his “acquaintance” with Zoroaster was the so-
called Chaldean Oracles, which were made up of Platonic, Neopythagorean, Stoic, Gnostic,
and Persian elements, probably compiled in the 2nd c. CE; on these, see further DANNENFELDT
1957.
151
WOODHOUSE 1987, 179; KNÖS 1950, 178; François Masai’s view, that it was composed in
the years that followed 1439, is ruled out by John Eugenikos’ copy of the work (Par. gr.
2075); cf. MASAI 1956, 402.
152
TAMBRUN-KRASKER 1987, xxxiv.
160
at Mistra) and became Plethon’s most widely distributed work.153 Since

Tambrun-Krasker has provided a modern edition of the work together with a
French translation, I will not pursue the discussion of it here, but just add
that it is a well-composed but not very innovative treatise founded on Pla-
tonic and Stoic ideas, but also incorporating Aristotelian and Christian ele-
ments.154
The treatise Reply to the Treatise in Support of the Latin Doctrine is much
less known (Text 40, incipit < ; / `"`
). It has, as far as I
know, only seen one edition, in Dositheos Notaras’ >
X= $
, printed in Jassy, Moldavia 1698.155 Dositheos, patriarch of Jerusa-
lem, wrote in reaction to Cyril Loukaris’ efforts to renew Orthodox Christi-
anity in pro-reformatory direction, and in the compilation of >
X=
he found Plethon’s treatise expedient for his purposes.156 In Gr 8 there is no
original heading to the work: an owner of the book copied a few words from
the incipit (and a prayer formula), and the El Escorial secretary Nicholas de
la Torre added
^
^
#
$% in the upper margin. In Dositheos’
edition the title is %< < ;
""
>
`"`
.157 The trea-
tise Plethon replied to here was John Argyropoulos’ %}"
".158
Upon Plethon’s text on the Holy Spirit follows another, shorter text which
also treats the filioque question (Text 41).159 It lacks a title but has been given
153
At least 65 manuscripts are known plus several editions and translations into Latin, Italian,
and other languages (TAMBRUN-KRASKER 1987, xxix; MASAI 1956, 248, n. 1).
154
Plethon’s text ends with a chart over all the virtues; this is reproduced on the front cover of
this book.
155
Reprinted in PG 160, 975–980.
156
Cyril Loukaris was the patriarch of Alexandria from 1601 and of Constantinople 1620–
1638. He was the driving force for a modern Greek translation of the New Testament (carried
out mainly by Maximos Rodios from Gallipoli and printed in Geneva after Cyril’s death in
1638). Cyril’s contacts with Protestant churches of northern Europe were ill seen in Orthodox
as well as in Catholic circles, and he was finally executed on the charges of high treason.
From a book-history point of view it is worth mentioning that Cyril Loukaris introduced the
first printing press in the Greek world: in 1627 he invited the printer Nikodemos Metaxas to
set up a press in Constantinople. Metaxas set off printing religious—mostly anti-Catholic—
books and tracts. The Jesuits, however, instigated an attack on the printing house and the
janissaries destroyed the press only a few months after it had been set up (KITROMILIDES
2006, 193–201; see also ROBERTS 1967). It is intriguing that the very next attempt to set up a
Greek press on Ottoman soil, was initiated by Patriarch Dositheos. This was installed in 1682
in the monastery of Cetatuia, close to Jassy, i.e. under the Phanariote regime in Romania.
Thirty-eight Greek books (four of them bilingual) were printed here up until 1710 (BOU-
CHARD 2005, 36).
157
This must not be confused with the treatise which often goes under the name of Reply to
Scholarios, %< $ ; "

[

)

X"?", i.e Text 24 in
Gr 8.
158
MASAI 1956, 389–392.
159
On the place of the filioque-controversy in the discussions at the Council of Ferrara-
Florence, see for example PAPADAKIS & MEYENDORFF 1994, 379–408, esp. 401f. A presenta-
tion of one of the main (pro-Greek) sources of the Council, the Memoirs of Sylvester Syro-
poulos, Grand Ecclesiarch of Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, together with some glances at
two other sources, the Acta Graeca, a record by a prounionist bishop (Dorotheos from
161
an attribution by a later reader, probably the person who owned the book
around 1546 (cf. above, p. 78): ~ } }

-
_().160 Nicholas de la Torre, who created the index to our book at El
Escorial, inaccurately attributed both this and the preceding (i.e. Plethon’s)
text to Mark Eugenikos (° }\). However, even though Text 41
does not, as far as I know, correspond with any published work of Mark
Eugenikos, bishop of Ephesus, it may perhaps communicate his answer
(}) or his views on this matter in the Council discussion of 1439. At
least there are expressions and phrases included which closely resemble
what Eugenikos uses in other council-related texts. The text is not well-
wrought but seems rather more like a draft or notes taken down.161 Mark
Eugenikos and Bessarion were appointed chief representatives at the Council
(
@
³ ´), and were granted imperial authority to reply to
the Latins’ arguments. Eugenikos seems to have come to the Council with
the earnest wish to see a durable union on dignified terms, but was dejected
by what he saw coming in the discussions. In the end, Eugenikos was the
only bishop who refused to sign the decree of union.162 Eugenikos and Bes-
sarion had known each other long, they had been classmates in John Chor-
tasmenos’ school in Constantinople and had both studied under Plethon.163
But in theological matters they stood widely apart: Bessarion, with his thor-
ough philosophical and humanist education, was influenced by the Aristote-
lian Thomism, whereas Eugenikos had a more traditional, monastic back-
ground, and had his heart set on hesychasm in its Palamite form.
Fate and predestination

Texts (29), 30–32, (56), (73)
In the excerpts from Theodoret (Text 56), treated above, we came upon the
problem of fate and God’s providence. In Gr 8 this topic is brought up in
some other texts as well. Two of these have an explicit attribution to Mark
Eugenikos, this time made by the scribe Theodoros himself (Texts 30–31).164
Again, they seem more like a report of Mark Eugenikos’ opinions or
Mytilene?), and the Acta Latina by the papal lawyer, Andrea of Santacroce, is given by
GEANAKOPLOS 1991. See also http://www.syropoulos.co.uk/biblio.htm.
160
This would probably be Patriarch Joseph II, who was present at the Council in Florence.
But since Mark Eugenikos was in fact sent there to represent the patriarchs of Alexandria and
Jerusalem, one cannot say for certain. Cf. TSIRPANLIS 1974, 41.
161
162
In addition to the filioque controversy, the main theological issues of divergence between
the churches were the purgatory, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and, of course,
the primacy of the Pope (TSIRPANLIS 1974, 50).
163
TSIRPANLIS 1974, 39.
164
Text 30:
^ *<$ °
^ } $% © %¯
¯ %$
# %. Text 31: ^
^ #<$
#\% # % >
*
¬
.
See also Appendix 1.
162
thoughts (<), i.e. notes or excerpts made by someone else than the
bishop himself.165 Text 30 discusses predestination and eternal punishment;
Text 31 describes how the punishments of sinners are given in analogy with
their transgressions: deep outer darkness for those who have loved the in-
ward darkness of ignorance, the poisonous worm for sins of the flesh, Tarta-
ros for those who have grown cold in their love of God and neighbor, et cet-
era. According to George Scholarios, Mark had early on been summoned by
the Emperor to explain his theological stance on predestination.166 Could the
notes which ended up in Gr 8 have been taken down already on this occa-
sion?
Text 32 is a theological problem, $, stated briefly and answered
with the help of frequent references to Scriptural passages, much in the vein
of @%
$ , question-and-answer literature, a genre which is often
represented in miscellaneous manuscripts.167 In its subject matter it also fol-
lows neatly upon the two preceding items in Gr 8, which deal with predesti-
nation and eternal punishment. The text is anonymous, and since I have no
secondary material on it I let it speak for itself:168
Problem: How does God endure that such a large crowd of people around the
whole world perishes, all those who are incessantly destroying their lives in
sin?
Solution: Tell me, what kind of crowd are you referring to? Good people also
seemed to be in the crowd. Have you not heard that for God “all the nations
are like a drop from a bucket; they are regarded as spittle” (Isa. 40:15). Do
you not understand the unsurpassed greatness of God’s power? Have you not
heard the prophet saying “He holds the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants
on it like grasshoppers” (Isa. 40:22)?
Tell me, how many fleas did you thoughtlessly crush on your body, or
how many caterpillars on the vegetables? But a man who preserves his image
(and likeness with God) untouched and through virtue makes himself familiar
to God, him cannot even the whole world outweigh. But if he gives up the
divine portion and falls into the beastly way of life (Ps. 72:22), then an
earthworm that preserves its natural state is more preferable to God than he
is. The Lord loathes a bloodstained and deceitful man (Ps. 5:7).
Do you not see the corpse, how we all loathe it? And we cover it up with
earth, so that it does not fill everything with its worms and putrid liquids and
foul smell and decay. Such is to God the soul that has acquired sinews (mus-
cles) through sin and separated itself voluntarily from the godly life.
Punishment after death is a subject treated also in Leo VI’s poem of contri-
tion (Text 73), discussed above.
165
The text includes wordings like $ ©
(“he distinguishes, interprets that”) and #\< ©

(“he says that”).
166
PETIT et al. 1928, 428.
167
Cf. HEINRICI 1911, 6. On Greek question-and-answer literature, see also PAPADOYANNAKIS
2006.
168
163
While on the subject of predestination and punishment, Text 29 (inc.
¤ $) should be mentioned. It presents an unusual view on what

happens to children if the parents beget them during the woman’s menstrual
period. The children are destined to fall ill in horrible diseases, but the illness
will always surface at a certain time in their life depending on when (which
day and hour) during the menstruation the conception took place. Text 29 is
discussed in Chapter 5.
More on virtue and vice

Texts 34, 46, 52, (55), 77
Virtue and vice—always a topical subject—is also brought up in Text 34, an
excerpt on the eight enticements to sin (gluttony, lust, avarice, wrath, grief,
indifference, conceit, and arrogance). Whereas in the Catholic tradition one
counts with seven deadly sins or capital vices, it is notable that Text 34 only
speaks of enticements, or bad thoughts (#<$), that may or may not lead
to the commitment of sin:
Whether all these bad thoughts harass us or do not harass us is not in our
power to decide. To be assaulted is one thing, to harbor the thought in one's
mind is another, to give room to passion is still another, (and another to fight
back), assent is one thing, outright activity another.169
The text has been attributed to three different authors: John of Damascus (ca.
650–ca. 750), Athanasios of Alexandria (ca. 295–373), and Ephrem the Syr-
ian (306–373). The textual tradition which Theodoros had at hand was the
one associated with John of Damascus. However, in all three cases these
texts further explain how one can behave when faced with temptation,
whereas the text in Gr 8 cuts off in the middle of this exegesis, without ex-
plaining the last two steps (<
Ñ= and @Ò< ) and their conse-
quences. This seems a bit odd, since Theodoros actually had a few more
lines at his disposal on the page. It could, however, be that this blank space
was insufficient for copying the whole paragraph, and accordingly Theo-
doros cut off at a “good” line in the exegesis, just where we are invited to
wrestle and so resist the temptations that would lead to sin.
On virtue, there is also the prose paraphrase of Gregory of Nazianzos’
poem with the same name, On Virtue (Carm. mor. I. 2, 9), but this text, Text
55 in Gr 8, has already been discussed above. Likewise, Plethon’s treatise
On Virtues, Text 23, has been mentioned. Under the same heading one could
certainly add large portions of the gnomological texts in Gr 8, but we will
save these until later and discuss them among the practical texts.
169
Jo. Dam., De virtutibus et vitiis, PG 95, 93A (CPG 8111).
164
It may seem from my treatment here that there are countless entrances
into the subjects of philosophy and theology in Gr 8. To be clear: yes, these
texts do color the overall impression of the manuscript, and prove that Theo-
doros had a genuine interest in these matters. But the texts are in themselves
so diverse in genre and style, poetic, prose, learned, simple, “modern,” (i.e.
for someone in the fifteenth century) and ancient, that we get a rich and in-
teresting picture of the field. I also hope to have shown that the texts were
not selected randomly: there are themes which recur time and again, and link
different parts and units of the manuscript together with others.
Devotional, biblical, and liturgical texts

Texts 33, 44, 76, 79, 80
Let me end with a few texts of a more devotional kind. A prayer to the The-
otokos, )| @ | ;
"
>
(Text 33), seems
to be unknown from other sources and I have not found it in any repertories
of Byzantine hymns and related material (such as Enrica Follieri’s Initia
hymnorum). The prayer, as it is called in Gr 8—perhaps one could catego-
rize it as a “hymn” written in fifteen-syllable verse—begins with the address
£
,
, = ¯
. Even if the text as a whole
seems to be uniquely presented in Gr 8, there are a few musical manuscripts
from later centuries which show that at least the first four lines of it were
used as a kalophonic heirmos.170 These later manuscripts correspond with
each other in wording, but differ slightly from Gr 8 in lines 3–4:171
£
,
, = ¯
,
º
% · _
#<.
%
#<, ®_¯
¤ #.
¤ $Õ , \ =
.
170
Par. suppl. gr. 1135, ff. 219v–222r (mid-18th c., Kition); Vindob. suppl. gr. 190, f. 170r–v
(late 18th c.); Par. suppl. gr. 1136, f. 196r–v (before 1819); Par. suppl. gr. 1140, ff. 93–96
(after 1827); catalog entries in ASTRUC&CONCASTY 1960, 246–259 and 272–277; HUNGER ET
AL 1994, vol. 4, 331–333. All four manuscripts present Meletios Sinaites’ composition of the
hymn, and in one of them, Par. suppl. gr. 1140, there is also an alternative version by
Archbishop Germanos (both of them 17th-c. composers). A kalophonic heirmos is a hymn
which functioned as a musical accompaniment during, or in connection with, the service in
church; it could, for example, be sung during mass, when the bread was distributed. This
hymn, i.e. the short version of Text 33, is flagged as “unediert” in the Vienna catalog, but it
was apparently printed in
>"

#"> (<$ £%
®#
),
%

# 1835; reprinted by #
as facsimile sine anno. I am grateful to
Professor Hilkka Seppälä for providing me with this piece of information.
171
In Text 33, lines 3–4 read as follows (Gr 8, f. 193v): %
#<,

< |
¤ #
¯ ®_¯, ¤ $Õ. For the rest of the text, see
Appendix 1.
165
Furthermore, in the akolouthia which John Eugenikos wrote over his brother
Mark, bishop of Ephesus, there is an exaposteilarion which might echo the
first line of Text 33: its second strophe starts with the line £
,

, ¯
=\ .172 On the other hand, the thesaurus of
phrases to use would have been there for anyone to combine, as is obvious
from, e.g., Ephraem the Syrian’s collection of hymns to the Mother of
God.173
Lastly, there are some biblical and liturgical texts in Gr 8: the Decalogue
or Ten Commandments (Text 44), some psalms (Texts 76 and 80), and also
Ave Maria, Pater Noster, and Credo (Text 79).174 One would imagine the
Ten Commandments to be a text which everybody knew by heart, making it
superfluous in a manuscript. Nevertheless, it is not included as an “extra,” as
a page filler. Rather, it seems planned with as much diligence as any other
text, with spaces left for rubricated initials for every commandment, and so
forth. In the manuscript the text is followed by a list enumerating the biblical
patriarchs and Jewish, Chaldean, Persian, Syrian, Egyptian and Roman
kings/emperors. Both the psalms and the liturgical items are set bilingually;
evidently, these were intended as language practice, with the Greek words
put in above and carefully matching each Latin word. To use the Book of
Psalms as a primer was more or less standard procedure during the Middle
Ages (when it replaced Homer as the students’ first acquaintance), and thus
it also made sense to employ these well-known texts when introducing a new
language. Apropos of Texts 40–41 which deal with the problematic addition
of filioque to the creed, one may observe that the Credo in Text 79 includes
the qui ex patre filioque procedit / © @
^
> Á^
@
,
with no extra comment whatsoever. Apparently, the issue was no longer so
hot so as to incite Theodoros to make any remarks on this in his book. Per-
haps the question was of less concern precisely because the text was sup-
posed to be a mere language lesson.
Practical texts
Is it possible to distinguish how texts in a certain book were used? Or for
what intended use they could have been gathered in the first place? Perhaps
not specifically, unless there are actual traces in the form of comments, mar-
ginal notes and the like. But the textual types themselves may invite a reader
more or less patently to go about using them in a practical way. It may also
be the case that we find it hard to imagine any other function for some of the
172
The akolouthia over Mark Eugenikos has been edited by Louis Petit; for the exapo-
steilarion, see PETIT 1927, 221.
173
Ephr. Precationes ad dei matrem, ed. PHRANTZOLES 1995, 354–413.
174
Ps. 32 (= LXX, Ps. 31); Ps. 38 (= LXX, Ps. 37); Ps. 51 (= LXX, Ps. 50); Ps. 6.
166
Practical texts
texts. Can an enumeration of bishoprics ever be enjoyable to read for its own
sake? Would a description of the parts and potencies of the soul inspire any-
one to leisurely reading? I think one must conclude that a large portion of
Gr 8 consists of precisely these kinds of texts. Nevertheless, as with all cate-
gories, this also has its border cases: lists of anecdotes, proverbs, historical
tidbits would easily trigger a reader’s imagination. As soon as there is a trace
of narrativity in a text, there is also a good chance that it could have been
kept for its reading value, regardless of other aspects of usefulness. Let us
therefore start out with these micro-narratives, the chreiae and anecdotes,
and then work our way toward the more technical texts, the lists, lexica, col-
lections of arithmetic examples, procedures of fortune-telling, language ex-
ercises, and so forth.
Gnomical texts
Texts 5, 10, (88)
To this cluster I count collections of sayings, scattered maxims which often
function as page fillers, and, in addition, works which to a great extent are
built up from sayings and proverbs. The reason why I put these among the
“practical texts” is their role as treasuries; some of them may have offered
moral guidance, but most were probably quarries: if you wanted to write a
letter, give a speech or a sermon, or even appear bright in a dinner conversa-
tion, you needed these morsels of famous sayings and anecdotes, proverbs
and words of wisdom. This was true not only for ordinary readers (whoever
these were). In Byzantine literary works, in letters and speeches as well as in
the larger narratives we find it illustrated time and again: the same anec-
dotes, adages, and fine-sounding phrases recur frequently.
One rather excessive example of the use of proverbs in a literary work is
Isocrates’ speech To Demonicus (Text 5 in Gr 8). Although To Demonicus
traditionally counts as an oration, it is, as I stated above, in its form more of
a treatise or a letter. In his hortatory treatise Isocrates has collected and con-
nected admonitions and precepts which could be useful to a young man who
aimed at living a good and virtuous life. The compositional technique was
not uncommon: one finds the same “gnomic” character in works by Hesiod,
Theognis, Pindar, and Menander.175 But in the case of To Demonicus this has
become a stumbling block for its authorial attribution to Isocrates. Scholars
have criticized the treatise’s lack of style and form precisely due to its inte-
gration of many proverbial wordings.176 Among Byzantine readers (and au-
thors) this critique would have seemed inconceivable. To use well-known
175
THÜR 1998, 1112.
176
The debate around the (in)authenticity of To Demonicus is the concern of my article
“Bodybuilding for the Soul: Earnest Words are Needed. The Case of Isocrates’ Speech To
Demonicus” (forthcoming).
167
wordings and pithy sayings when composing literature, especially in classi-

cizing Greek, was not a sign of lack of originality; the thing was to use them
intelligently, to make a point, to sum up, to vary your composition, et cetera.
Aphoristic literature has a long record, in Greek as well as in other cul-
tures, and it is not unreasonable to count the fables of Aesop (Text 88) to this
same sphere of didactic, gnomic and proverbial literature. Since these were
treated in the section on narrative texts, I will here mention another work,
which was composed on the basis of earlier anecdotes and legends: the Alex-
ander romance. In numerous versions and languages the story became
widely disseminated during the Middle Ages. In Gr 8 it is represented by a
few anecdotes in Text 10, plus another ten in the gnomology starting on f.
238 (Text 48).177
Gnomologies
Texts 35, 38, 48, (59),
Collections of sayings are often referred to as gnomologies (after the Greek
word for sentence or thought, <), or florilegia (“pickings of flowers”).
Among scholars, florilegia have been exploited mainly as sources of an oth-
erwise lost (classical) literature, but there are other ways of looking at this
kind of literature. One is to emphasize the role florilegia played in the proc-
ess of the intellectual production of their own time, i.e. to put them into an
historical-literary context. This path was taken by Marcel Richard, who was
one of the pioneers on this genre, and Paolo Odorico has worked much in the
same vein, for example in his study of John Georgides’ florilegium.178 André
Guillou considered the Sacra Parallela and similar collections as mirrors
providing indications on the organization of Byzantine society, and proposed
that they be used as a source for Byzantine histoire de mentalité.179 Even if it
is rational to count gnomical texts among the practical texts, as a form of
Gebrauchsliteratur, I still think we must allow more than one area of use for
the gnomological texts in our manuscripts: depending on their subject matter
and the preferences of the collector/reader, they could have been compiled
and copied for didactic purposes, for devotional use, as a help for the mem-
ory, as a treasury to draw from in one’s own creative work, for the sheer joy
of having pithy and memorable aphorisms to relish and share with people,
and so forth.180
177
The Alexander legend is also referred to in Tzetzes’ Chiliades; in the excerpts included in
Gr 8 one can read about Alexander’s taming of the horse Boukephalos (Chil. I, 28), and about
Alexander’s two-colored eyes and bent neck (Chil. XI, 368). Tzetzes’ Chiliades and his letter
to Lachanas were also mentioned above, among narratives and letters.
178
ODORICO 1986, 4; Cf. RICHARD 1964.
179
GUILLOU 1976, 11.
180
On the Byzantine culture of compilation, see also ODORICO 1990; LEMERLE 1971.
168
Practical texts
There are a few florilegia in Gr 8, and we have already come across one,
Text 48. This is a rather comprehensive florilegium, encompassing 19 pages
in the codex. Organized alphabetically it starts out with sayings attributed to
Alexander, Anacharsis and Aspasia and ends with the saying “þ

^

\ , ¹
%
Ò Á ×.”181 Although
organized alphabetically, it still seems to be a mix of different kinds of flori-
legia: some sayings are sorted by names, i.e. the person who supposedly said
it; some are anonymous and are sorted by incipit instead. In Text 48, we
have both principles in a blend. Within this investigation there is no place for
mapping the earlier sources or related collections in any detail. I limit myself
to a couple of observations. At present, there are about ten sayings which I
have not identified in other florilegia. Since most of these happen to stand as
the last few items per each letter in the alphabetic order, this may imply that
they are recent additions to the collection, perhaps even added by the scribe
himself. A case in point may corroborate this: the last three items under let-
ter alpha are sayings attributed to Alexander. The very same items, however,
are also part of Text 10, i.e., the Alexander sentences which Theodoros
added toward the end of U3. If one of these two instances is secondary, rely-
ing on the other, it is probably Text 48, since in Text 10 these excerpts are
given in the same order as they stand in the Alexander romance, whereas in
Text 48 the order is jumbled. Another observation that may be of interest is
the fact that a number of sayings which I have not found in other florilegia
correspond to sayings incorporated in the Life of St Cyril Phileotes.182 This
twelfth-century work by Nicholas Kataskepenos is known from three manu-
scripts only,183 and “shares many features with monastic-cum-sacro-profane
florilegia compiled by near contemporaries including John the Oxite, Paul
Evergetinos and Nikon of the Black Mountain.”184
Text 35 is another small collection of only ten sentences. One is attributed
to Maximos the Confessor, six to Demosthenes, one each to Brutus and Aris-
totle, and one is anonymous. In the first sentence, we once again meet the
soul, and its three parts—reason, will, and desire: “bridle the hot-tempered
part of the soul through love, quench the passionate part of it through self-
control, put wings on the rational part through contemplation, and the light
of your soul will never grow faint.” The rest of the sentences display the
same sentiment of virtue and common sense: “nobody can avoid death, but
good men must always try to act honorably, offer good hope, and hold that
181
This saying is rendered slightly differently in Nicholas Kataskepenos’ Life of St. Cyril
Phileotes 46. 4, where the doctors, reasonably, are said to be the saviors of the sick, not their
fathers.
182
The lack of parallels in other florilegia is just a preliminary result that a thorough investi-
gation may modify.
183
Cod. Athous Caracallou 42 (a. 1341), Cod. Marc. gr. II. 104 (16th c.), Cod. Athous Lavra
H 191 (18th c.); see further SARGOLOGOS 1964, 23–27.
184
MULLETT 2002, 144.
169
god give magnanimously”; “to join someone in what one should not and not
to join in what one should, amounts to the same thing.” Did Theodoros select
these sentences specifically or were they already part of a florilegium which
he had at hand? It is not easy to say, but one can at least say that there is no
easily detectable principle which would explain the combination of sen-
tences.185 Text 59, on the other hand, is a short but coherent gnomology,
covering the sayings which became attributed to the Seven Sages of
Greece.186
Normally, florilegia are created by the combination of many source texts,
but there are examples of one-author florilegia, and even florilegia which
limit its source material to one single work. Examples of collections based
on a single author are Menander’s “one-liners,” Monosticha, and the collec-
tion of Euripides citations. The core of the so-called Gnomologium Byzanti-
num is the sentences from three authors: Democritus, Epictetus, and Is-
ocrates. In Gr 8 there is one decidedly “monocultural” collection of excerpts
and sentences, a gnomology which has Constantine Manasses’ historical
work, the Synopsis Chronike, as its only source (Text 38). This collection of
Synopsis excerpts is not unique; there are a number of similar gnomologies
in manuscripts dated to the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries. When
Odysseus Lampsides wrote his article on some of these gnomologies,187 he
did not include Gr 8 in his survey, probably due to the poor quality of the
Uppsala manuscript catalog, where the text is itemized merely as “Farrago
sententiarum ex diversis excerptarum.”188 Constantine Manasses’ twelfth-
century chronicle is a colorful work, which presents lively stories and beauti-
ful ekphraseis in a vein not far from the contemporary Komnenian novels.
The contrast is stark between the chronicle in its entirety and the gnomology
based upon it. What the excerptor selected in this case was above all the
proverbial wordings, the moral at the end of certain episodes, and also occa-
sional ekphraseis, in all probability because of their applicability, i.e., with
the prospect of recycling them in other contexts, oral as well as textual. As I
have shown in a recent article, this was not the only mode of selection; de-
pending on personal preferences and the purpose of a certain collection, a
compiler could gather mainly descriptions, or historical episodes, or material
on the imperial family, et cetera.189 The material was rich and the choices
many. Compared to related collections, such as the one in Bodleian Misc.
285 (Auct. T 5.23, 16th c.), the Synopsis gnomology in Gr 8 is truncated: all
the excerpts derive from the first half of Manasses’ chronicle. The position
in the manuscript may be the reason for this, since the text was put in secon-
185
For the whole collection of sentences, see Appendix 1.
186
This text was mentioned among the philosophical texts, above.
187
LAMPSIDES 1985.
188
Cf. catalog entries in GRAUX 1889, 39 and TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 234. Originally, the
expression comes from Sparwenfeld’s catalog (Catalogus centuriae 1706, 59).
189
NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009, 54f.
170
Practical texts
darily, filling the last three folia of U6. Nonetheless, the location of the
gnomology is not arbitrary: it goes well together with the preceding texts,
which include many passages on virtue and vice plus gnomological material.
Scattered sayings
Texts 10b, 37, 47, 54
Proverbs are regularly put in as page fillers in Gr 8, but this does not mean
that they must be secondary from a scribal perspective. Three short proverbs
or sayings finish off f. 196v (Text 37), and to judge from the ink and the
decoration they were put in at the same time as the preceding material.190
This may be compared to the subsequent text, the Synopsis gnomology,
which Theodoros apparently added at a later stage, and which lacks both its
title and rubricated initials.191 That the scribe paid special attention even to
the smallest additions in the book may be illustrated with Text 10b. Here the
two proverbial sentences are thematically related to the preceding anecdote
in Text 10a (on Alexander who saw a soldier being deloused by a woman):
“The seemly adornment for a woman is not beauty but moderation”; “Like a
golden earring in a pig’s snout, so is beauty in a heedless woman.”192 Recy-
cling of sayings may be observed even within Gr 8. The same Alexander
sentences were included twice (in Text 10 and Text 48), and likewise, two of
the sayings in Text 37 also appear elsewhere as a page filler (Text 54).
Tagged onto a text dealing with the soul, these gnomic expressions on life,
death, and philosophy here seem a perfect match. One of the two sayings,
the “memento mori epigram” °¬ =
_
Î "$´, is also
attested as an inscriptional epigram: it is found on a marble slab now im-
mured in the exterior wall of the monastery of Xeropotamos (Mount Athos),
and the same line is also known to have been inscribed in Palaiologan times
on the Xyloporta in Constantinople.193 Text 47 is another micro-text, this
time put as a page filler after a long strophic poem with solemn contents, the
so-called Carmen paraeneticum (see above, p. 136).
190
F. 196v, the last three lines: _ < ¤
_^ Á }\. °¬
=
_
Î "$´. Ì }#}$¨ #\
=
.
191
A reader has added what looks like a title in the upper margin of f. 197r, but it turns out to
relate only to one of the excerpts on the next page (“The Trojan war, how Achilles died”).
192
£\% <
> ##, ##’ %} (Lib. Decl. 6. 2, 35); ÿ
@
_^ @ º Ê, ¹
% } < ## (Prov. 11:22).
193
Marc Lauxtermann suggests that the marble slab at Xeropotamos originally came from a
monastic graveyard, either in Constantinople or elsewhere. Cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, 243 and
350f.
171
Lists
Texts 22, 45, 62, 63, 65
From the catalog of ships in Book Two of the Iliad to the endless enumera-
tion of persons and professionals in Whitman’s poem Song of Myself, litera-
ture is full of them, the lists, the enumeration of things, persons, offices,
rulers, and what not. So why not in the miscellanies, a book form especially
suited for minor works. “And of these one and all I weave the song of my-
self,” says Walt Whitman, and a parallel may effortlessly be drawn with the
miscellanies, so full of seemingly adversative texts. Among the lists in Gr 8
are one of the seven wonders (Text 22), one on ancient inventors (Text 63),
and so-called Notitia episcopatuum, i.e., lists of all the patriarchates, metro-
polises, and sees in the Byzantine Church (Text 62).194
Text 45 is a long list of all the biblical patriarchs and Old Testament
kings, kings from Jewish, Chaldaean, Persian, and Assyrian dynasties, and
also the Roman kings/emperors from Julius Caesar, @}
>
°\Ç °<, to Constantius, father of Constantine the Great,

, ~
^ <# %

$
¬. This long list may also count
as a short chronicle, since it presents some extras: small pieces of informa-
tion on certain rulers and, in addition, several chronological notes on how
many years had passed from Adam until this or that dynasty came into
power. The enumeration ends with the phrase “from this time on, the emper-
ors of the Christians,” @
^= Á
²
"# . It is not fully
clear whether this was meant as a heading to yet another paragraph, or if
Theodoros simply chose to end on this note. Since there is room for another
six lines or so on the page, perhaps the second suggestion is the more prob-
able.
In Text 65 we meet the Palaiologan emperors and the Ottoman sultans.
This list was later amplified through a reader’s marginal notes: another three
sultans and their respective conquests bring us all the way up to the battle of
Mohács in 1526.195 The original list of sultans ends with Mehmet II, who
ruled from 1451 and conquered Constantinople two years later.196 The fact
that there is no mention of his successor is worthy of note, considering
that—based on the watermarks—we have an approximative date for large
parts of Gr 8 to around 1481. Mehmet died in May 1481 and was succeeded
by his son Bayezid II later that year. Although there are no guarantees that
lists like these would always be updated by a scribe, the situation is at least
194
On the topos of first inventor,
Ê
¬, in encomia and other rhetorical texts, cf.
THRAEDE 1962, 1202. On the list of bishoprics in Gr 8, see DARROUZÈS 1981, 443.
195
See also Appendix 1. Similar examples may be found in Peter Schreiner’s collection of
“Chroniken Türkischer Eroberungen;” see, for example, Chronik 65–68 (SCHREINER 1975, I,
498–525).
196
The date in the manuscript is Anno Mundi 6959, indiction 14. Mehmet had two periods of
rule, first from 1444–46 and then from 1451.
172
Practical texts
suggestive of a dating of this part of the manuscript before May 1481, in

accordance with the watermark evidence.
Lexica
Texts 12, 50, 61, (76, 79–81)
This is another group of texts obviously included for their practical applica-
bility, whether one’s own interests were decisive or one needed the linguistic
and factual information for teaching purposes. Text 12 is a botanical lexicon,
which gives synonyms or explanations to herbs, roots, and all sorts of other
things which were used as pharmaceutical ingredients or remedies.197 Even
though most items in the lexicon are botanical species, there is certainly a
generous attitude to what fits in an enumeration like this: beer, glue, and
occipital bones are found scattered among freshwater turtles, moles, and seal
feces. The feeling is that one would rather not know what components were
in the drug one just ate. A similar lexicon was edited by Armand Delatte,
from Parisinus graecus 2318 (15th century), but some of the lemmata have
more exhaustive explanations in Gr 8.198 Another manuscript, which contains
a botanical lexicon closely related to the text in Gr 8, is Marcianus graecus
292. This codex is of Cretan origin, most of it copied in 1306 by Michael
Lulludes. Here, just as in Gr 8, the botanical lexicon follows upon Paul of
Aegina’s Medical compendium.199
Text 50 is a lexicon of synonyms, which seems to have advanced literary
vocabulary as its focus, words which one would encounter when reading the
Septuagint, Homer, and ancient tragedy, for example. Both this and the bo-
tanical lexicon are organized alphabetically, i.e., from alpha to omega ac-
cording merely to the first letter of each word but not the rest. A comparison
of Text 50 with edited lexica of a similar kind seems to suggest that many
entries come close to the readings in Pseudo-Zonaras’ lexicon. But there are
lemmata included that would rather point in other directions, to an affinity
with the lexical corpus of Hesychios, the Suda, Lexicon Segueriana, et al.
None of these seems to offer a clear-cut model for Text 50.
Yet another lexicon gives evidence of linguistic interests. The subject
matter of Text 61 is glosses from all kinds of Greek dialects, including Ro-
man loanwords: <> <#
# ,
#^

<#%¬
, “words such as there are in each city (such as are called
glossems).”200
One unit of Gr 8, U15, exemplifies linguistic practice by the widespread
method of “take a text that you know well, preferably by heart, add a transla-
197
Inc.
\¨ }#\, expl. ¨
> "#. See also Appendix 1.
198
DELATTE 1939, 372–377.
199
TURYN 1972, I, 105; the botanical lexicon is a later addition to the manuscript and not in
Lulludes’ hand. On Michael Lulludes, see also TURYN 1973.
200
Inc. |=%. ·<¨ #$. Ã#¨ . #¨ Á
.
173
tion of it word for word, and you have a language lesson.” The texts selected
for this purpose are, not unexpectedly, drawn mainly from the Psalter (Text
76 and 80) and the liturgy (Text 79). A letter formulary, examples of how to
address different people, is also included among the bilingual—Latin and
Greek—items in U15 (Text 81).201
Medical texts
Texts 11, (12), 13, 14, 15, (29)
The medical texts in Gr 8, among which the medico-botanical lexicon must
be counted, is a clearly demarcated genre in the book. Just about all the
medical material is gathered in a codicological unit of its own, U4. The only
medical subject matter located elsewhere in the manuscript, in U6, is a text
which I mentioned among the theological texts; it is also treated more thor-
oughly in the next chapter: Text 29 (inc.
¤ $). That text is
indeed concerned with medical questions, but the “scientific” medical expla-
nations are combined with a theological and moral message in a vein unre-
lated to the more strictly medical texts discussed here.
The medical material in U4 comprises five texts, or possibly six, if we
consider the fact that the first and longest text, by Paul of Aegina (Text 11),
also incorporates a fictitious letter from Diocles of Karystos to the Macedo-
nian King Antigonus.202 This letter, which is an exposé “on illness, whence it
comes, which the signs are and how one should approach it,” is transmitted
as the last chapter of Book One in Paul of Aegina’s Medical Compendium.
But one may also come across it transmitted independently.203 Although, in
Gr 8, the letter obviously belongs to the tradition of Paul’s works, following
as it does upon chapters 73–99 of the same book, it is clear from the layout
of the manuscript that our scribe, Theodoros, considered it a separate text
(cf. p. 82). Chapters 73–99 offer a survey on foodstuff and nutritional mat-
ters as well as some advice on sleep and insomnia.
Text 12, the medico-botanical lexicon, has already been mentioned above.
Following upon the lexicon are two texts possibly chosen from a personal
201
The psalms and liturgical texts were mentioned above, among the devotional texts. For the
formulary, see Chapter 5.
202
Paul of Aegina was a physician and surgeon in 7th-c. Alexandria, whose encyclopaedic
work deeply influenced Arab medical teachings, and thereby in turn Western medieval medi-
cine. The fictional character of Diocles’ letter has been confirmed by Felix Heinimann, not
only due to the chronological difficulty in combining the activity of the Attic physician Dio-
cles (fl. 340–320 BCE) with a king by the name of Antigonus, but even more cogently be-
cause of the contents: the dietary and non-pharmaceutical inclination of the teachings is such
that it can hardly have been composed earlier than the 1st c. BCE (HEINIMANN 1955, 166).
Arnaldo Momigliano, on the other hand, wanted to ascribe the letter to Aristogenes (3rd c.
BCE), court physician to Antigonus Gonatas (Suda, 3910 and 3911, s.v. |
<\;
MOMIGLIANO 1933, 132–135).
203
Cf. DIELS 1906, 27f. and 77f.
174
Practical texts
need: a pharmaceutical formula intended to provide a remedy “for swollen

glands and edemas, a diuretic, also efficient on ischias” (Text 13), and a
brief anonymous note on cyclamen and tamarisk as contraceptive and abor-
tive agents (Text 14).204 The last text of the unit, Text 15, could well be seen
as supplementary and less significant material, filling up the page. It is an
exposition on the stages of man’s life divided into seven-year phases. The
excerpt, which comes from the Hippocratic tradition, has found its way into
florilegia by way of exerpts from Philo.205
On the whole, the character of these medical texts does not point to pro-
fessional medical practice. The medical information may be considered ser-
viceable for someone interested in and taking care of his own health, keeping
a wholesome diet, and so on. But there is also a component of cultural leg-
acy; the herbs in the botanical lexicon are not there simply for their curative
capacity. Some are definitely more of glosses on ancient texts, plants men-
tioned in the Odyssey for example. Most of the lexical material comes from
Dioscorides’ Materia medica, but some lemmata reveal later influences. The
epistolary form of Paul of Aegina’s chapter 100 is another hint that these
texts may have been included in Gr 8 as part of what may be called medicine
as a topic useful for table-talk, conversational rather than therapeutical mat-
ter.206
Mathematical problems
Texts 83, 84, 86
The penultimate quire in Gr 8 contains a number of mathematical problems.
I refer to these as two texts, Texts 84 and 86, since they present different
methods of problem-solving and are separated by almost three blank pages
in the middle of the quire (space which was later used for notes and scrib-
bles, Text 85).207 It is quite possible, however, that they were copied from
one and the same model text. The blank spaces may indicate that Theodoros
had planned to insert further examples later on. The first section (Text 84)
presents algebra with the help of examples from daily life. The second (Text
86) deals with fractions and the addition, multiplication, and division of the
same.208 Part of a mathematical problem (Text 83) was also added by a later
reader (see p. 107).
204
The formula comes from Aëtios of Amida (Aët. XV, 15, 693–704). For the notice on
contraceptives, see Appendix 1.
205
Philo, De opificio mundi 105.
206
Cf. Ilias Pontikos’ discussion of the medical excerpts from Alexander of Aphrodisias
included in Cod. Barocc. 133 (13th c.): “a collection of natural questions of no great philoso-
phical or medical value, reminiscent of the table-talk genre of writing which derived from the
Late Roman period and was still popular among the Byzantines of that time” (PONTIKOS 1992,
xxxvii).
207
For the notes which make up Text 85, see p. 106.
208
Cf. SEARBY 2003b.
175
Astrology/divination
Text 66
In Gr 8 one also finds a practical manual on geomancy, or sand divination.
Theodoros apparently had far-reaching interests into different things. It is
fascinating that this cultural expression is put side by side with pious texts (a
prayer to the Virgin, spiritual guidance, doctrinal discussion, eschatology,
etc.). Text 66 includes a zodiac, basic astrological lore, and a brief introduc-
tion to the art of ramplion, divination with the help of a random number of
marks struck in the sand. One of the studies in Chapter 5 is dedicated to Text
66.
An idiosyncratic selection
The delimitation of the group “practical texts” has been made on the basis of
subject matter and the assumed function. In some cases the subject matter
tends toward the range of subjects included in Byzantine education, though
we have no hint that the volume ever functioned as a school book or teach-
ing compendium per se.209 Just as in Western Europe, Byzantine instruction
included rhetoric, grammar, and logic (trivium), arithmetics, geometry, as-
tronomy, and music (quadrivium).210 Not all of these subjects are represented
in Gr 8, and the texts in the volume are not really typical school texts. Theo-
doros’ selection of texts seems more idiosyncratic than that. Was it governed
by personal interests or professional motives? With an educated scribe it is
not always possible to draw the line between these incentives.
Minding the gaps, bridging the differences

With miscellanies and composite books there is always the question “why
did somebody put these texts together?” What was the purpose of it all? Are
the pieces connected, and if so, how? Gr 8 has been scrutinized from differ-
ent perspectives. The codicological investigation revealed information on the
overall structure of the book, on where—and how wide—the gaps are be-
tween different units. Despite the obvious composite character of the vol-
ume, there are still connective traits that knit units together: the handwriting,
the writing material of several units, the decoration in some of them, the
mise-en-page, to mention the most conspicuous. Another unifying factor is
209
The connection between miscellaneous books and schooling has been suggested in other
studies, for example by Robert Black (BLACK 2003). This connection, however, is not self-
evident and must be determined discriminately, from case to case.
210
On Byzantine education during the last centuries of the Empire, see MERGIALI-FALANGA
1996 and MARKOPOULOS 2008, with further references.
176
the contents. To argue that one may find coherence in a volume with 90
texts, when they belong to so many different genres and centuries is not un-
complicated. Fiction, letters, medical texts, botany, mathematics, astrology,
philosophy, theological queries, sermons, prayers, poems, speeches, chroni-
cle material, sayings, lists and lexica: is there really a logic to all this? Per-
haps not overtly; at least it would have been difficult to maintain this had the
book been a composite created from units of various origin. But the unifier
here is above all Theodoros himself. This was his book, his selection of
texts, and that is why we need to bring in the perspective of use, even if that
is a somewhat elusive category.
I argue that Gr 8 was Theodoros’ own book. It is his scribal creation, by
all means, and the arrangement of the codicological units seems conscien-
tious enough to let us assume that the book did not come about through a
“cleaning of desk drawers.” In any case the one who put the texts together
knew what he was doing, and had full comprehension of which units and
texts to combine: starting with Stephanites and Ichnelates (U2), next picking
up the theme of prince’s mirror in Isocrates’ speech followed by further nar-
rative texts (U3); having Plethon’s and Mark Eugenikos’ texts on the filioque
controversy (U7) follow upon the units which hold other humanist texts, by
Leonardo Bruni, Bessarion, Nicholas Sagundino as well as Plethon and
Eugenikos themselves (U5–U6); and so forth. The addition of all the micro-
texts in connection to—and often in style with—the larger texts also points
to Gr 8 being a personal book, and not something Theodoros intended to
sell. All that extra work would not have paid off in a vending situation.
In the present chapter the texts from Gr 8 were collected and connected
into four categories. This gave us the chance of a bird’s-eye view of the con-
tents. The point of departure for the categorizing was the function that we
may assume for these texts. At this stage we might even bring these catego-
ries down to three objectives that may have guided Theodoros in his compil-
ing of texts: 1) “things I like to read” 2) “things I’m interested in” 3) “things
that might be useful for me.”211 In many cases these three reasons for includ-
ing texts may have interacted. The category of narrative texts, for example,
would mainly go together with objective 1, but that does not exclude the
possibility that some of those texts could have been of more practical use as
well. The category of philosophical and theological texts would match with
objective 2, but the intellectual (or devotional) side of these matters was just
one possible reason for their inclusion; there may have been others. The
rhetorical texts and the practical manuals are apparently bent on usefulness,
objective 3, but there are letters, poems, and declamations which may just as
well have been included for the pleasure of reading or for their subject mat-
ter. The same goes for some of the practical texts, which could well have
211
The third objective could include both private and professional applications.
177
been sorted under a different heading, had we wished to emphasize another

aspect.
Can we draw any conclusions from the absence of some textual categories
or genres? The diversity of the texts does not point to the book reflecting a
specific profession, i.e., there is nothing in Gr 8 that would prove Theodoros
to be a lawyer, a physician, a priest, or even a teacher for that matter. But of
course he could have owned those kinds of texts in another volume. What
about the intellectual level of the contents of Gr 8? The book was written
and laid out in a professional way, but it reveals few signs of having been
intended as a scholar’s book. It does not include much of marginal com-
ments, scholia, or other learned activity. There are some reading signs in the
margins in Theodoros’ hand, glosses like $%, Ú, Ú

,
but most of them were added by later readers. The subject matter points
more to a well-educated but not really specialist reader, a person who is in-
formed of the intellectual trends in humanist circles, but who needs an all-
round library rather than the most advanced writings and theories on a cer-
tain subject. An aspect which must be kept in mind is the “business side” of
all this: Theodoros was a professional scribe, and however interested he may
have been in texts for his own sake, it would have been necessary for him to
think also about marketing, about having model texts at hand from which he
could make copies for the benefit of his customers.
I initiated my investigation of Gr 8 out of curiosity about a book type, the
one which contains so many different texts so as to make you wonder why
they were gathered in the first place. But the more I worked my way into the
manuscript, its mise-en-page, combination of texts, combination of units, the
more I saw the impact of the scribe’s mindful work. Theodoros is no plain
copy cat. There is definitely thoughtfulness behind the composition. Neither
was this book created on somebody else’s commission.212 The reason for
keeping the units unbound may, of course, have been their function as his
own model texts; he could use them time and again in his professional work.
After a time, though, Theodoros must have decided to keep the libelli as his
own instead, added the micro-texts, thus creating the whole composite in a
deliberate and attentive manner.
The next chapter will not be about the whole book anymore, and thus it
stands a little apart from what I have been aiming at in the previous chapters.
What I will do in Chapter 5 is to present a selection of minor texts from
Gr 8, the kind of texts which are often included in multitext books but tend
212
This statement is valid for the codex as a whole. Individual units (perhaps U3–6 and defi-
nitely U17) may originally have been prepared for vending although for some reason they
were instead set aside.
178
to be neglected in catalog descriptions. But they certainly contribute to the

character of the book. These texts, too, are part of Codex Upsaliensis
Graecus 8. It contains multitudes.
179
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK
5 Delving deeper: a selection of texts
“Varia nullius momenti” or significant components?

In the discussions above Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 has undergone both
being torn apart into its codicological units and being glued together by
speculations around the collective focus and purpose of the volume. Here we
will gently pull out a few pages here and there, with the intention of acquir-
ing a more thorough comprehension of a limited number of texts. What can
they tell us about the world of ideas that our scribe Theodoros and his con-
temporaries embraced? Can we find imprints of a late fifteenth-century
(post-)Byzantine mentality in the subjects which Theodoros chose to bring
into his book?
My selection of texts for in-depth analysis is in a way arbitrary, since
there was so much to choose from. One purpose, though, in choosing them
was to present three very different texts to call attention to the width and
variety in the book. Another challenge was to pick short and seemingly in-
significant texts to see where a study of them would lead us. These are the
kind of texts which at least in older manuscript catalogs, if at all mentioned,
would have been described as quisquiliae, nugae merae, or varia nullius
momenti—scraps, trifles, of little interest to anyone. Countering this, I argue
that they are well worth our efforts. They not only work as an integral part of
the manuscript books, where one often wished to use all pages to the limit.
They can also be the texts which offer new insights, either because they have
been overlooked by earlier scholars or because they represent more of a per-
sonal addition, something one would like to include although maybe not as a
main category or first text of a unit.
The first item to be put under the magnifying glass is Text 29 in Gr 8,
which belongs to the religious sphere. It is a short piece of moral instruction,
which also dwells on the medical consequences of sexual misconduct, in this
case represented by intercourse during menstruation. The text has, to my
knowledge, never been published or discussed, despite the fact that it carries
an attribution to John Chrysostom in our manuscript. Even if this ascription
is likely to be spurious, it does add interest to the evaluation of the text and
its cultural context.
The second one, Text 66, leads us on a tour into some of the astrological
lore which, as part of the ancient Greek cultural heritage, lingered on and
saw new developments in Byzantium as well as in Persian and Arabic-
speaking areas. Here the framework is an introduction to a divinatory art

which became widely spread in the Mediterranean world during the later
Middle Ages: ramplion or geomancy, divination with the help of sand.
In our third text, finally, Text 81 in Gr 8, we may catch a glimpse of the
everyday conditions for post-Byzantine scribes and other intellectuals,
whose sources of revenue in the political turbulence of the fifteenth century
often depended on contacts with potential patrons and on the ability to start a
new career “abroad,” in Italy or in other parts of Western Europe. The text is
a so-called formulary, examples of how to address various officials. The
formulary is bilingual, written in Latin with a Greek translation above each
line and, as it follows upon several other short texts presented in the same
way, it indicates to us the prevalent model of learning a new language: take a
text which you know by heart, get a word-for-word translation and start
memorizing.1
The first two texts are presented together with an English translation; in
the case of the third, I figured the Latin translation would suffice. I have
tried to interfere very little with the Greek text, with the exception of a slight
normalization in the spelling (concerns the variation of ///, /, sin-
gle/double consonants, and iota subscriptum). When not stated otherwise,
the translations in this chapter are my own.
Due to the lack of self control: Text 29

Text 29 is a modest component of Gr 8, occupying little more than two
pages in the manuscript, or thirty-eight lines. It is introduced as being “by
the same (author),”
^
^, implying that its author was John Chry-
sostom; the preceding text is presented as a “sermon by the great Chry-
sostom on Herodias and wicked women.”2 But considering the fact that the
number of spurious sermons attributed to this author has been seen to sur-
pass the genuine in bulk, this supposition is somewhat shaky.3 Nevertheless,
1
In addition to the three texts included in this chapter, I have given yet another one a closer
analysis, but the results were published as a separate article: Text 38, a collection of excerpts
drawn from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike, was added by Theodoros at the end of
U6 (on pages which he initially had left blank). This gnomology, its relation to the whole
chronicle as well as to similar “Synopsis gnomologies,” was explored with the focus put on
how Byzantine texts were composed, read, used, and transmitted. The presentation was co-
authored with Ingela Nilsson (NILSSON & NYSTRÖM 2009).
2
µ<
^ <# ²

¢% < (printed,
with a different title, In decollationem praecursoris et baptistae Ioannis, et in Herodiadem,
PG 59, 485–490; CPG 4001 and 4570). The attribution of this sermon to Chrysostom is con-
sidered spurious (cf. MERCATI 1921, 231 and ALDAMA 1965, 138f.), but it is transmitted under
his name both in Anastasios of Sinai’s Quaestiones and in the Sacra Parallela.
3
Cf. CHAPMAN 1929, 73. According to Johannes Quasten some 300 spurious works are
printed and another 600 works falsely attributed to Chrysostom still remain inedited (QUAS-
TEN 1960, 470).
184
we must acknowledge that for the scribe of Gr 8, Theodoros, these two texts
did pass as Chrysostom’s works, thus carrying the weight of authoritative
statements.4
The context in this part of the manuscript (U6) is made up of a fair num-
ber of near contemporary works, written in the intellectual milieu of Mistra
and Italy in the mid-fifteenth century: by Plethon the treatise On virtues and
the opening paragraphs of his reply to George Scholarios on Aristotle’s phi-
losophy; letters by Bessarion (to the sons of Plethon, to Michael Apostoles,
to Andronikos Kallistos) and by Nicholas Sagundino (also to Andronikos
Kallistos); and theological notes by Mark Eugenikos. In immediate vicinity
to Text 29 we find two other texts explicitly derogatory of women. he pre-
ceding Chrysostom sermon (Text 28) is biased in an interesting way:
whereas in the primary version (CPG 4570) the enumeration of wicked
women is followed by their good and virtuous counterparts, our scribe, or his
model manuscript, excluded the end part of the sermon, thus emphasizing
female vileness only. Text 27, Libanios’ Declamation 26 “On the morose
and his wife,” is a text less venomous but still directed at giving a disagree-
able picture of women. After Text 29 follows an assortment of short texts
with moral or theological content (Mark Eugenikos on the end of life and on
eternal punishment, John of Damascus on the eight capital sins, letters by
Isidore of Pelousion, and a few anonymous texts).
Text 29 will be explored here with focus on the contents and ideas pre-
sented in the text. How do these fit in with earlier and contemporary views
on the subject? Is there a Byzantine tradition behind the ideas, or do we need
to look elsewhere to find the cultural trail eventually leading to the text we
now read in Gr 8? What does the manuscript context tell us; do the sur-
rounding texts give any clues on how to read Text 29? From the limited
scope of the text we may assume that the manuscript only transmits an ex-
cerpt or notes based on an originally longer text. The language of the text is
problematic in some places, whether because of textual corruption or be-
cause it is some kind of shorthand notes, not even meant to be complete is
difficult to know. Nevertheless, even though there are minor points in the
edition which are solved only tentatively, I do not find this an impediment
for the overall comprehension of the text. So as not to interfere too much
with the original, I have made only slight adjustments to the text, accounted
for in the apparatus, and will instead discuss the difficulties in connection
with the translation.
4
Text 29 is mentioned in CPG as “Sermo anepigraphus” (No. 4878), and is also included in
Robert Carter’s enumeration of Chrysostom codices (CARTER 1970, No. 33). It has not en-
tered José Antonio de Aldama’s inventory of pseudo-Chrysostomian works.
185
Text 29 (ff. 189v–190v)
1
^
^¨

¤ $
}#
% <<\%

_´ # $
, @¬
#

#\. #\<% ¤ # ·#
@# }
$, (190r) # }$,
5 <<< }<\.
^
+
@ Î $´ @\_

##"\
< $%. ¡
< \ ·} Á

¯. ¡
Õ ÷ \ø ~ <<
^
¨ ø ¼ ’
##" @
¡

¯ }\
> <

>
_
¯ ##¬® %. < @
>
\
10 % \

^ \ @
¯ }\. @ + @ _³

< $% ##"
> , @ _³
>
_=\
@¬

, +
Õ ø,
\
@\_
, +
\ø
\ø ý
$
Õ,

> ®¯}
<>
Ú

@
$
Î
_=\
. @ +
³ ¡"Õ
¯ }\ #_ \
15 ##",
Î

\´, ³, @
Î
\#
¯ %¯
¾<¬

\
#
Î . $ø < <<
(190v)
}\
> @
#

"##. = #^

· *
$ <\%
\_ @

\.
$ \; °%¯
^
@
$´ } ;
20 ¾} $#
> #> @
=Î =>
>
, ¤
³ #$Õ @^ Ú _ <$ =
Î ""´;
Â¹
% + ~
}#> $#

³ =$ø; <Õ + ## >
^ @¬=, > ³ >
^
\# Ë @##¤ @< ¬=.
> <
¤ "
^
\#
Û
@<_

¨
+ < ·##
25 \# #
<
> ¾
%
Î
}<< . Á + Ú
Ê> =\ _

% @
$=

> ¤
}=¯
ý "#"¯ >
¯ · =

¨
^

_ Ù
Á <
^.
1
^
^ scil.
^ ²
4 #¬#
U 9 \ U 12 +
Õ] +

U +
\ø] +
\ U 14 @] @ U #_ \/ U 18 *
$ U 25
>] > U 28 < U
186
Translation
By the same author [John Chrysostom]:

Due to the lack of self control of those who recklessly have intercourse,
plague will eventually befall the children and indelible and inimical diseases
will come upon them. I mean a pestilential and unceasing illness, such as
elephantiasis,5 leprosy, gangrene, and cancer. All this will in due time invade
those who are conceived from6 the menses of women. Seven days a month
the discharge of blood flows. Thus, the person who has intercourse on any of
these days7 [will experience] the following things: in the moment during the
seven days of discharge in which she conceives, the offspring will be pun-
ished in accordance also with the time of conception. For an hour is defined
as a year and a day as a twelve-year period for the seed sprung from the
menstrual discharge. If she receives the seed at the beginning of the menses,
the disease will fall upon the new-born child early in life; if in the tenth hour,
the disease will invade it after ten years; if on the second or third day, the
years will extend further for the child according to the calculation of days
and hours. And if she conceives on the seventh day of the menses, the pesti-
lential disease will seize the offspring—if it is still alive—at the end of life,
after eighty-four years. Because they are having intercourse without self
control, they defile a body with their seed, sullying it in blood. Then is ful-
filled the saying, “the sins of the fathers befall the children.”8 Nothing new in
that: even Moses said this in a secret message,9 did he not? Should we not
observe what is good and sow our seed pure in a pure body, and not surren-
der it to pestilence, becoming like swine in the mire?
Was thus also the blind man conceived in impurity? Through charity,
rather, he was brought forth prematurely, as he hurried forth before comple-
tion and was born deficient. The eyes are engraved towards the end of the
completed pregnancy; the other limbs are formed prior to the eyes, being
tightly compressed with the body. But since the pupils dry up like dew by
5
Elephantiasis is usually taken as the Greek term for the disease nowadays named “leprosy.”
In Arabic there was also a disease with the corresponding name (d’ al-fl), but it signified
quite another illness—modern lymphatic filariasis. Here it is, by all accounts, the former
disease which is aimed at, i.e. leprosy. Nevertheless, I have decided to keep the original word,
especially since the next disease mentioned in the text ( # }$) means leprosy as well. On
these diseases, see further below.
6
The verb ##"%, is here understood as “conceive,” with menstrual fluid being the
matter out of which the fetus is created. Another option would be to read the phrase as “those
who come into contact with the menses.”
7
Literally “on each of these days.” The Greek clause lacks an active verb, here added in
brackets in the translation.
8
Cf., e.g., Ex. 20:5 and Deut. 5:9.
9
The term
¬ is rare in the Septuagint and in no instance is it associated with Moses
(it is found only in Daniel, Judith and Tobit). On its use in patristic writings, see HAMILTON
1977.
187
heat, they are put in last of all, so as not to perish altogether or become dam-
aged by the extreme heat. Therefore his parents did not sin.10
———
The message of Text 29 is that intercourse with a woman during her men-
struation may result in severe diseases, generated in the fetus but manifested
later in life depending on when in the woman’s period the conception took
place. This is supposed to be concordant with the Old Testament notion of
“inherited sin,” of God punishing the next generation for the parents’ trans-
gressions. The moral instruction, which is at the heart of the text, is com-
bined with medical explanations, the key concept being $, which
according to Liddell and Scott’s lexicon means either (A) bad mixture, or
(B) incontinence, lack of self control. “Bad mixture” captures the meaning of
shared bodily fluids, and is a term used in Hippocratic medicine. But the
wording “
¤ $” is also reminiscent of 1 Cor. 7:5, ¤
ÑÕ Ê ~

¤ Ó Ê (so that Satan will not
tempt you because of your lack of self control), a passage which deals with
proper sexual conduct and whether one should marry or abstain from sexual
intercourse altogether. This Pauline passage was commented on in numerous
patristic writings, and ought therefore to have rung a bell for many people,
whether through their own readings and education or just by their going to
church and being immersed in Christian vocabulary from their early years.
The last paragraph of Text 29 opens up an alternative etiology for disable-
ment. John 9:1–12 relates how Jesus caught sight of a man who had been
blind from birth and the disciples asked him who was to blame for the im-
pairment:
Ó Ù
,
ý Á <
^,
}#> < =³. His
answer was that neither he nor his parents had sinned; rather, it happened “so
that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” In Text 29 this is ex-
panded on in an unusual way. The text refers to “charity” or “love”—
<—and premature birth as reasons for his blindness and gives an em-
bryological sketch on why this affected his eyes. Whose love or charity is at
issue here, God’s or the parents’? Text 29 gives no hint on how to compre-
hend this.
The combination of religious and medical discourse in Text 29 motivates
an approach from different angles. We will thus examine both the Jew-
ish/Christian views on purity and the ancient medical lore which has left an
imprint in our treatise. I maintain that it was precisely the combination of
these two systems of thought which facilitated a long-lasting belief in the
detrimental effects of menstrual sex.
10
Cf. John 9:1–3.
188
Menstrual impurity
The taboo around menstruation is often said to be world-wide.11 It was pre-
sent also in ancient Greece to some extent, though most writers exhibit a
moderate outlook, some even considering menstruation in a woman healthy
and positive—we will come back to this below, in the discussion on medical
views.12 The text which has had the greatest impact on Byzantine and west-
ern medieval attitudes to menstruation is Leviticus, where the religiously
based taboo is an exhortation to the Israeli people to stay ritually pure when
performing cultic ceremonies. The purity laws in Leviticus marked out the
restrictions for a person who was approaching the holy sphere and covered
many different areas: food, clothing, animals, sexual relations, life and death.
Leviticus chapter 15 is about bodily discharges which cause uncleanness. It
is noteworthy that the first eighteen verses actually treat male bodily dis-
charge, whereas the next twelve verses are about the female equivalent. The
regulations and the appropriate sacrifice for cleansing are very much the
same for both sexes, and yet, throughout the centuries the curse has been on
Eve to an extent that Adam never had to undergo: it was evidently conven-
ient to use biblical support to continually circumscribe the freedom of
women. The prohibition against menstrual intercourse is not only about
ceremonial cleanness, whether women have access to the tabernacle/temple
or not, but seems to be more of a general ban. It is mentioned in Leviticus
18:19 and 20:18, as well as in Ezekiel 18:6. Jewish purity laws as we meet
them in the Torah do not stand alone: there is a history behind them too.
Codified in post-exilic times they are reminiscent of Mesopotamian practice,
and the Zoroastrian taboo on the menstruant was as severe, menstrual sex
being considered a capital offense.13 The same overall picture is present in
Hindu law as well, and, given the cultural interchange between the peoples
of the Mediterranean and the Middle East regions, it would be unexpected if
11
“Menstrual taboos may not be universal, but they are sufficiently widespread to justify the
inference that they are an extremely ancient component of the human cultural configuration”
(KNIGHT 1991, 375).
12
Hesiod states that a man must not wash himself in water previously used by a woman (OD
753–755), but he is not explicit as to whether uncleanness (and possibly banefulness) applies
to women as such or, specifically, to women as menstruating creatures. Later writers, though,
had no qualms about how this was to be interpreted: Averr. 3. Collec. cap. 7. dicebat, coitum
cum menstruata lepram inducere, atque hoc se experientia cognovisse, ut non solum à legisla-
toribus prohibitus sit huiusmodi concubitus, sed etiam ab Hesiodo vetitus, ne in balneis ver-
setur quis, ubi lavatae sunt mulieres menstruatae (Hieronymus Mercurialis, De morbis mulie-
bribus, IV. I, in SPACHIUS 1597, 257). On ancient Greek views, see also KING 2002.
13
See PHIPPS 1980, 299. In ancient and medieval times, if a Zoroastrian man knowingly had
sex with a menstruant he was to be punished with up to ninety lashes (according to Vidvd t
16: 13–16), although, as Jamsheed Choksy states, this severe penalty could also be trans-
formed into a fine (CHOKSY 1989, 92). Choksy emphasizes the menstruant’s ritual impurity as
sufficient reason for the Zoroastrian prohibition of menstrual intercourse and does not men-
tion any Zoroastrian belief reminiscent of our text’s subject matter, i.e. the possibility of
damage to a fetus created during the menses.
189
the attitudes to women and the restrictions around them had not been af-
fected by adjacent beliefs during the centuries.14
For Christian theologians the purity laws from the Old Testament have
been difficult to handle. How are they to be harmonized with New Testa-
ment teachings, what elements should be kept unchanged, and what could be
cast aside? The dietary laws of Acts 15:29, for example, were observed in
the Greek and oriental Church up to and including the fifth century, but have
since then had little impact in Christian teachings.15 The precepts on correct
sexual conduct have persisted more or less unchanged up until today.16 As
for chapters 13–14 in Leviticus, which deal with skin diseases and mildew,
only one part lingered on: the ban on leprosy. In Josephus’ description of the
temple area in Jerusalem, we meet with an early juxtaposition—but not
causal connection—of leprosy and menstruation.17 Except for one or two
voices, the patristic tradition has unanimously commended the exclusion of
menstruants from mass and declared menstrual sex abominable.
A text which is often put forward as radical in its stance on menstruation
is the Syriac work Didascalia (mid-third century).18 In chapter 26 of this
text, the author does away with Jewish purity laws and claims that they are
no longer necessary for Christians. The context is clear, and the Syriac word-
ing “And when (your wives have) those issues which are according to na-
ture, take care, as is right, that you cleave to them,” follows logically upon
what is said in the rest of the chapter.19 The early Latin version, on the other
hand, “cum naturalia profluunt uxoribus vestris, nolite convenire illis,” i.e.
14
According to Hindu regulations of sacred and civil conduct (dharma), codified in The Laws
of Manu around 200 BCE – 100 CE, the husband may approach his wife in “due season,”
avoiding “six forbidden nights and eight others” each month (III, 45–50). The Brahmana must
“not approach his wife when her courses appear, nor let him sleep with her in the same bed.
For the wisdom, the energy, the strength, the sight, and the vitality of a man who approaches a
woman covered with menstrual excretions, utterly perish. If he avoids her, while she is in that
condition, his wisdom, energy, strength, sight, and vitality will increase” (IV, 40–42). The
Zoroastrian purificatory use of bull’s urine in connection with menstruation may be compared
to The Laws of Manu V, 120–121. Cf. also XI, 174 and 213, where the urine of cows is men-
tioned as a remedy of purification for the man who has had intercourse with a menstruating
woman.
15
See TOMSON 1999, 75. Even though both Origen and Chrysostom stress the importance of
purifying your heart, the discussion in itself bears witness to subsisting observation of purity
commandments among Christians. Peter Tomson also refers to explicitly Christian purity
rules as they stand in, e.g., the Apostolic Constitutions 8.32: £
> ý
¤ %=

Ñ
@ ¹ >
^ < @
#Ò ®Ñ _Ò=% (every believing
man or woman must, when they wake up at dawn, wash their hands and pray before they
accomplish any work).
16
This applies to Islamic tradition as well; cf. Qur’an 2:222, 223.
17
Josephus, BJ 5, 227: <Ó + ¤ # ×# ©#,
> ’ Á > <
@ò Ò#
(those who had gonorrhea and leprosy were excluded from the city
entirely, and women, during their menstruation, were shut out of the temple).
18
See, for example, FONROBERT 2000, 166–188; COHEN 1991.
19
VÖÖBUS 1979, Syriac version p. 262; English translation p. 244. I would like to express my
gratitude to Dr. Mats Eskhult for helping me with the Syriac text.
190
“do not cleave to them,” does not fit with the rest of the arguments in chapter
26. Thus, on hermeneutical, intratextual grounds, the Latin negation ought to
give rise to suspicion. Nonetheless, the editor Arthur Vööbus states that
something must be wrong with the text in Syriac: “a deliberate change can-
not come into account here,” he argues.20 On the contrary, it would be all but
unlikely if on some occasion a negation crept into the Latin text, considering
the fervent anti-menstrual tradition in Latin texts, from Pliny, over the early
Church Fathers, and onward.
The Leviticus decrees were originally promulgated as cultic observances,
related to the temple and the priesthood of Judaism. In the course of time,
however, they became reinterpreted as part of a social and moral code,
something which has often been associated with the rise of Christendom. But
the moralizing approach is found also in rabbinic writings, and mirrors the
changes in Israel’s socio-historical situation at the time of the destruction of
the Temple in 70 CE.21 Thus, leprosy became connected with pride and arro-
gance.22 For the sake of their impiety, Diodorus Siculus says, the Israelites
were expelled from Egypt, cursed as they were and afflicted with scurvy and
leprosy.23 In the same way, moral corruption is what the early church fathers
imply when they declare leprosy to be an “emblem of sin.”24 However, be-
fore we delve into the patristic tradition and its continuation in Byzantine
and Western medieval texts, we need to consider the medical side of the
problem.
The medical view of menstruation

The attempt at a medical explanation of diseases by the notion of “bad mix-
ture” ($) is in line with the ancient tradition of humoral pathology,
which maintains that an intemperance in the body fluids is potentially harm-
20
VÖÖBUS 1979, 244, n. 229.
21
BEENTJES 2000, 72. Jonathan Klawans argues that the moral aspect is present already in
Leviticus, and that there is a clear difference in the judgement of menstruation in itself—not
referred to as an “abomination” and easily cleansed—and in impurity contracted by the per-
formance of sin, e.g. menstrual sex, which leads to dire and permanent consequences (KLA-
WANS 2000, vi).
22
See Pancratius Beentjes’ discussion of 2 Chr 26:20 (BEENTJES 2000, 71). Cf. Josephus, AJ
IX, 222–227.
23
D.S., Bibliotheca historica (ed. Walton), Fragmenta librorum 34/35. 2:
< #} ý
#Ò _
@
å =^ _Ñ Ú @< ==Ò
Ê Ó
@" "#¯=.
24
Ps.-Justin Martyr, Fragment 2 (ed. Otto):
Ò% [prob. error for \]
#Ò Ê×=

^ =^, ## }Ò % *
, =³
#Ò "#¤
¯ *
Ó
=× "#¤
^ Ò##
=Ô = Ê+
*
(therefore the material for purification was not prescribed for leprosy, but for ac-
quittance of sins, in order that leprosy might be apprehended as an emblem of sin and the
things sacrified an emblem of Him who was to be sacrified for sins).
191
ful and will result in illness if balance is not restored.25 Menstruation as such
was not necessarily seen as negative. In the Hippocratic tradition menstrua-
tion was a sign of health in a woman, a stance maintained also by subsequent
medical writers, like Galen and Paul of Aegina.26 Its purpose was to purge
women from superfluous humors: while men could remove the impurities
from their blood by sweating, women, whom they imagined being colder and
less active, could only do so by menstruating. A variant of this was to view
menstruation as the shedding of a plethora: women concocted more blood
from their digestion of food than they could use up. This excess might be
used to nourish a fetus, or might be converted into milk for the baby. When
not pregnant or breast-feeding, the plethora in women’s bodies had to be
expelled, as menstruations.
The embryological teachings of Aristotle, Galen, and others, maintain that
the embryo is created from a mixture of semen and menstrual blood.27 Ac-
cording to Galen, who owes much of his theoretical background to Hippo-
cratic medicine, both man and woman contribute seed.28 Aristotle, on the
other hand, claims that the male semen only supplies the energizing principle
or “form” to the embryo while the menstrual blood is the sole matter from
which it is created (GA, 766b). As male seminal fluid was thought to be
foam, made out of water and the active principle, pneuma, and the female
counterpart was the menstrual blood, the mixing of body fluids would be
inevitable in procreation. The fluids of the body are, according to Aristotle’s
theory, generative of each other—food becomes blood, and blood may in
turn become menstrual fluid, milk, or semen, as well as marrow or fat.29
Hence it is difficult to understand why menstrual blood came to be singled
out as particularly despicable. There is one passage in The generation of
animals which seems to link Aristotle with the subsequent tradition to stig-
matize the menstruant, especially in connection with abnormal births:
Democritus said that monstrosities arose because two emissions of seminal

fluid met together, the one succeeding the other at an interval of time. […] If,
25
This theory of the four humors (blood, phlegm, black and yellow bile) and their concomi-
tant characteristics (connected with the elements, the seasons, and the scales of hot-cold and
dry-moist) was put forward by Hippocratic doctors, and, mainly through Galen’s writings, it
became the dominating system of thought in medicine up until the 19th c.
26
A more negative view on menstruation was put forward by Soranus, who argued that it is
harmful to all women (Sor. Gyn. 1. 29).
27
This outlook is present also in Jewish wisdom literature; cf. Wisdom of Solomon VII, 2:
Ó´ _×´ < @
@ Ò
> ¯ ¹´ #=Ô.
But since this apocryphal text was created in Alexandria at a time when the city was the great
center of medical learning (1st or 2nd c. BCE), it is not impossible that Greek embryological
thinking influenced the author.
28
The male seed provides the material for nerves and vascular walls, whereas the female
contributes by creating the blood of the fetus. Galen vacillates on the nature of female seed,
whether it is the menstrual fluid or the fluid found in the vagina during excitation (De semine
II. 2).
29
PREUS 1977, 78.
192
then, we must attribute the cause to the semen of the male, this will be the
way we shall have to state it, but we must rather by all means suppose that
the cause lies in the material and in the embryo as it is forming.30 (my italics)
The raw material (¹#) Aristotle saw as potentially causing monstrosities

was the material contributed by the female, i.e. the menstruum.
Except for the citation above, Aristotle’s embryological explanations do
not particularly stigmatize the menstruant: they are rather degrading women
in general, as passive creatures, colder, and in every way less perfect than
men.31 Yet, Aristotle obviously influenced the negative view of menstruants
which persisted all through the Middle Ages (and far beyond). The coupling
of the menses to the moon may also have contributed, since this implied that
women were under the spell of an ominous celestial body often associated
with magic.32 In Aristotle’s treatise On Dreams (459b–460a), we read that
the menstruant’s gaze is so potent, it can stain a mirror: “If a woman chances
during her menstrual period to look into a highly polished mirror, the surface
of it will grow cloudy with a blood-colored haze.” From here there is only a
short step to Pliny’s indulgence in the devastating and fatal consequences of
menstrual contamination. These are described in detail in two chapters of the
Historia Naturalis, VII, 15 and XXVIII, 23. Here we limit the discussion to
the aspect of menstrual sex. In VII, 15 Pliny relates what Aristotle says about
embryo formation, that the male seed, acting as a kind of rennet, causes the
menstrual blood to unite and assume bodily shape. But “if the (menstrual)
flow continues during pregnancy, the offspring is born weak or not even
alive, or else full of bloody matter” (ergo cum gravidis fluxit, invalidi aut
30
Arist. GA, 769b–770a: ×
+ ÷ } <Ó< =

Ò

> Ô <
Ó
,
¤ + ×
~ò < ¤ @ #=^>
¤ ’ ¹

Ô

[@ #=^] @#=
¤ Ê
Ò,
}Ô = @##Ñ

× […]. +
÷
Ñ=
¤ >
^ · <ò,
^

>
× #
Ò· ©#% +
##
¤
Ó
Ò @
³ ¹#Õ

Ò ò ¿. Direct references
to Democritus’ theory are rare: an echo of this Aristotelian passage may lie behind Marcanto-
nio Zimara’s discussion in his commentary on Aristotle’s Problemata: Warumb entpfangen
die gemeine weiber nicht / als nemlich die huren? Antwort. Es geschicht vonn wegen der
mancherley Samen / dadurch derselbigen Geburth zeug verderbet wirdt / unnd werden
schlupffericht gemacht / also dass kein natürlicher same / bey ihnen behalten wirdt / oder
kompt auch darumm / dieweil ein same den andern verderbet / daß keiner zu der geburt
tauge. Daher gesagt wird Versus: Impedit et semen aliud simul, et mediante Quo impetito
sequitur destructio prolis. Ein same den andern vertreiben thut / Dardurch verdirbt die
fruchte gut (ZIMARA 1571, f. LVIII). I had access only to the German translation; the Latin
original was written in Padua before 1514. On Marcantonio Zimara (1475–1532), famous for
his commentaries to Aristotle and Averroes, see LOHR 1982, 245–254.
31
He even calls her a monstrosity in kind, before proceeding to further malformed creatures
(GA, 767b: < ~ ¤ @Ë
< ^ Ä
×

Ò @
Ó· "Ò" <
}Ô @
Ô
@
^ <Ò
×
Ñ. _¤ + å

> =¯# <Ó< = ¤
· ).
32
Arist. HA, 582a–b: ¢ +
< Ó% ~¤ <Ó
}=Ó

¯· × }Ó

}Ò%
¤ #ò ¿ =¯#, ©
Ã "Ó
+ Ñ=
³
’ }=Ó,

¤ Ñ=
¤ }=Ó #ò% }. Cf. also DEAN-JONES
1989, 187–190. On astrology and medicine, see BARTON 1994, 185–191.
193
non vitales partus eduntur aut saniosi, 15:66). This passage may easily ac-
count for a complicated pregnancy perhaps ending in miscarriage; Pliny’s
wording does not indicate menstrual sex but has to do with abnormal bleed-
ing during pregnancy. Yet, the interpretations of later commentators and
readers went in another direction, and in this they could in fact rely on
Pliny’s authority as well:
From the menses themselves, monstruous in other respects—as I have stated

elsewhere—ominous and shocking things are foreboded. Out of these I have
no qualms to tell you the following: if this [menstrual] power coincides with
an eclipse of the moon or the sun, irredeemable consequences follow, and no
less so if the moon is silent. Coitus at that time would be fatal and pestilential
for the male…33
The adjective monstrificus need only mean magical or monstruous in a figu-

rative sense, and since Pliny refers us to his own text in VII, 15, this seems
to be the nuance asked for. Nonetheless, as subsequent texts show, it has
been taken literally, as “monster-making, creating monstrosities” (monstrum
facere). Still in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we find references to
Pliny’s text, as is evident in, e.g., Ambroise Paré’s chapter on monstrosities
as examples of God’s wrath: “Quand une femme enceinte a ses moys,
l’enfant sera bien debil, ou ne viendra à terme.”34
Once Aristotle had laid the fundament, later interpreters used scholastic
reasoning to set up rules for sexual intercourse. If woman, as the Philosopher
had claimed, is weak and deficient, and her material, the menstruum, is
formless and in need of male perfection, then it follows that menstrual fluid
not used up in creating a fetus would become superfluous and degenerated.
Therefore one should engage in intercourse while the material is still fresh
and sensitive to form, i.e. in the week following the end of a period. If one
waited until later, the menses would have had time to deteriorate: this would
increase the likelihood “first of female offspring (i.e., only slightly de-
formed); then of badly defective ones; and then of none at all.”35
33
Plin. HN, XXVIII, 23: ex ipsis vero mensibus, monstrificis alias, ut suo loco indicavimus,
dira et infanda vaticinantur, e quibus dixisse non pudeat, si in defectus lunae solisve congruat
vis illa, inremediabilem fieri, non segnius et in silente luna, coitusque tum maribus exitiales
esse atque pestiferos…
34
PARÉ 1971, 152, n. 15. The same outlook is found in Summula Raymundi, a work based on
the writings of 13th c. Dominican friar and canonist Raymond of Peñafort, the codifyer of
Pope Gregory IX’s canon law (CRAWFORD 1981, 61). The text saw wide transmission both in
manuscript and recurrent prints (cf. KAPP 1886, 336ff.). On the matter of menstrual inter-
course, Raymond warns that the woman will bring forth leprous or red-haired children, pueros
leprosos vel cum rufis crinibus (BROWE 1932, 14, n. 82).
35
WOOD 1981, 716.
194
The penalty paid

What were the imagined consequences of menstrual sex according to ancient
medicine? In what way was the fetus (and sometimes also the parent/s) af-
fected? Above, we have met with some variants already (debility or prema-
ture birth, according to Paré; pestilence or death for the male involved, ac-
cording to Pliny; malformation, according to Aristotle). In Text 29 an array
of illnesses are mentioned, leprosy being the main candidate. One could
reasonably conclude that Leviticus’ juxtaposition of bans had brought about
this connection of two proscribed categories: the leprous person who had to
stay outside the camp until clean, and the persons who were to be “cut off
from among their people” having had menstrual intercourse. But in fact,
there were medical grounds for the leprosy part too. According to humoral
theory, an accumulation of black bile in the body would thicken and corrupt
the blood, and hinder the natural expulsion of it through the pores or with the
blood. Balance could be restored through purging or bleeding, wherefore
menstruation became vital in the discussion and treatment of melancholic
disorders. Thus, one of the earliest connections between breast cancer and
(cessation of) menstruation is hypothesized by Hippocrates (Mul. II, 133).
“Cancer” was understood not just as breast cancer but as swellings anywhere
in the body, tumors, festering ulcers, gangrene, et cetera.36 The etiology of
leprosy became the same, although this disease is a complex and not always
easily defined disorder. Returning to Aristotle once again, there is a passage
in The Generation of Animals which points in this direction. The embryo
could become misshapen owing to “the bulk and coldness of that which is
being concocted and articulated.” Aristotle compares this to what happens to
athletes through eating an excessive amount:
in their case, owing to the great bulk of nourishment there is, Nature cannot
gain the mastery over it so as to bring about well-proportioned growth [...]
Similar to this is the disease which is known as satyriasis; in this too, a large
bulk of unconcocted flux or pneuma finds its way into parts of the face of the
animal, and in consequence the face actually appears like that of a satyr.37
36
DEMAITRE 1998, 609.
37
Arist. GA, 768b, 25–36, translated by Arthur Peck, who comments that the last sentence “is
probably a marginal note which has crept into the text; in any case it is corrupt, and ‘uncon-
cocted pneuma’ is meaningless” (PECK 1965, 413). Nonetheless, it is fully compatible with
the rest of the paragraph: Bekker’s suggestion, to bracket ý Ô
as the problematic part
of the phrase º Ô
ý Ô
Ò
#¯=, is a feasible solution. On the other
hand, corresponding expressions about unconcocted pneuma do appear in Galen and others.
See, for example, Gal. De locis affectis, 8, 280 (in connection to a passage dealing with in-
flamed tumours, erysipelas, ulcers, and abscesses): @Ñ=
’ ©
Ó %Ñ#
#<ò
##Ñ @<Ó<
, Ô
Ò

}å #ò= . On Galen’s
pneumatology, see TEMKIN 1977, 154–161. Cf. also the statement attributed to Resh Lakish in
Leviticus Rabbah 15:2 (5th c. CE), maintaining that “much blood produces much šn (boils);
much sperm produces much racat (leprosy)” (cited from ZIAS 1989, 28). Simeon ben Lakish
(Resh Lakish) lived in Syria Palæstina in the 3rd c. CE.
195
The analogy with the athletes’ regimen is apt, since menstrual blood was
both created from women’s intake of food (compare the plethora theory,
above) and also became nourishment (for the fetus and for the suckling
child). This brings us to Galen’s description of elephantiasis:
Elephantiasis is also a melancholic condition, the onset of which comes from

biliary blood. Eventually the black bile exceeds the blood, and then the pa-
tients become malodorous and repulsive to look at; some of them also de-
velop ulcers. In its initial stage this condition is called satyriasis, since in
their faces they become like satyres. But some use this term on account of the
bone-like protrusions at the temples.38
Does the Greek term @# }

$ (@#Ò}) positively equate what we today
call leprosy? Modern leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease, is caused by
the Mycobacterium leprae: its extremes range from a disfiguring skin infec-
tion to a mutilating and sometimes fatal disease, permanently damaging the
skin, nerves, limbs and eyes.39 Leprosy is only mildly infectious and the bac-
teria multiply very slowly: the incubation period is about five years and it
can take up to twenty years before symptoms appear. This delay in outbreak
is worth noticing in relation to the numerological speculations in Text 29.
These ideas, which I have not come upon in any other Byzantine or Western
medieval texts, have a parallel in rabbinic teachings. On the question why
some progeny contracted the disease at an early age and others decades later,
the rabbinic answer was that if sexual relations occurred on the first day of
the mother’s menses, the child would develop leprosy at age ten; on the sec-
ond day, age twenty, et cetera, up until age seventy if on the seventh day.40
The arithmetics are not identical to the ones presented in Text 29, but there is
good cause to suppose that these ideas did not develop independently.41
Even though the ancient physicians knew nothing about bacteria and cre-
ated their own nosological explanation for the disease, it seems that the de-
scriptions of symptoms do match the modern disease. But to complicate
matters further, there are actually more than one term for leprosy in Greek.
38
Gal. De tumoribus praeter naturam, 7, 728: ° #<_#> + Ñ= ~ @#Ò} @
Ó,
¤
+ å
<Ò @
_% #<_#^,
Î _×´ + # Ó% Ò# <Ó

^
Ó å _= , @Ó +
# Ó
.
^

> Ñ= _× ¾Ñ
> @ ¤

Ô © <Ó<

>
×%. +

Ñ} @_ ¾
å ¹
% #^.
39
With the discovery of antibiotics some sixty years ago, leprosy became curable and in the
last twenty years the decrease in leprosy cases has been dramatic thanks to this treatment,
from 5.2 million patients in 1985 to around 225,000 registered cases at the beginning of 2007.
Pockets of high endemicity remain in a small number of African countries as well as in Brazil,
India, and Nepal (http://www.who.int/lep/en/).
40
Tachuma Metzora 39:22b (ZIAS 1989, 29). This rabbinic text is usually dated to the 9th c.
CE (STRACK & STEMBERGER 1991, 332).
41
This kind of correlative thinking according to a day-year principle has been employed
mainly in relation to prophetic texts, as, for example, in the case of both Jewish and Christian
interpretations of the Book of Daniel (Dan. 8:14, 8:26, and 9:25).
196
We see this even in Text 29: @# }

$ accounts for the elephantine ap-
pearance of the face, deformed by nodulation;42 # }$ probably refers to
the skin lesions.43 This leads us to the well-known quandary of biblical
“lepra.” The skin disorder(s) deemed unclean in Leviticus 13 has/have no
clinical likeness whatsoever with today’s chronic leprosy. It comes close to
psoriasis, but it probably covers many skin disorders which can fluctuate or
heal completely in a week or two.44 The Septuagint translators rendered the
Hebrew word racat as #\ from # $ – scale, flake, epithelial debris.45
Thus “lepra” or “scale disease” is the term we actually find in the Bible texts
and the Greek patristic authors. When the Arab translators wished to trans-
late the Greek word @# }
$, they encountered another problem: they
were already using the term “elephant disease” (d’ al-fl) for another ill-
ness, what is nowadays known as (Arabic) elephantiasis or lymphatic filaria-
sis (see above, p. 187). Thus they chose another word, jum, for Greek ele-
phantiasis. This word was eventually translated into Latin as lepra, i.e. the
same term which in Greek meant something totally different. If the ancient
linguists had not juggled these terms around, the condemnation of lepers
throughout the ages might have been less harsh.46
In Pseudo-Galen’s Definitiones medicae, the illnesses lepra and elephan-
tiasis are defined separately, as distinct and independent diseases:
Lepra is an abnormal change of the skin making it rugged, itchy and sore;
sometimes it implies desquamation, sometimes it spreads over larger parts of
the body. [...] Elephantiasis is a condition which makes the skin thick and un-
even and the whites of the eyes livid in color. The extreme parts of hands and
feet decay and give off a livid and foul-smelling pus.47
42
RICHARDS 1977, 9. This explanation is fully passable, but Ps.-Galen prefers another: the
resemblance of the skin and feet to those of the elephant (@# }
Ó + ÷ #Ò<
¤
@} ¯

> Ò

× @#Ò}
¨ _ <

×
_ Á
Î Ñ=
Ô
´ ×
#×
, @ . Ps.-Gal. Introductio seu
medicus, 14, 757).
43
From \#}, sheath, shell. Cf. the expressions “leprosy of the flesh” and “leprosy of the
skin.” Even today one often distinguishes between two principal forms of leprosy,
lepromatous and tuberculoid leprosy. The habit of putting down two terms for leprosy, which
is observable in the texts on menstrual intercourse, may thus not have been so far off the
mark. Another possibility, though, is that this was a result of the terminological vagueness in
medical literature, which some authors then tried to compensate for.
44
Cf. the cleansing rules in Lev. 13–14. A recent suggestion is that mold/mildew would not be
an unreasonable candidate explaining racat, since certain fungi (e.g. Stachybotros sp.) can
infest houses as well as manifest themselves in humans as a skin condition with symptoms
matching those described in Leviticus (HELLER, HELLER & SASSON 2003).
45
RICHARDS 1977, 9.
46
Even today, the disease leprosy would probably have a lower mortality rate, had not the
stigma of uncleanness hindered people from asking for help. The age-old stigma associated
with the disease still remains an obstacle to self-reporting and early treatment, according to
WHO (WHO 2005).
47
Ps.-Gal. Def. med., 19, 427f.: . µÒ @

"#¤
^ _%
> @
> }Ô

_Ô

×%, =’ ©
+ # Ó Ó
, ©
+
@Ò
# Ó Ò
^ å
. [...] . # }Ñ @
Ñ= _
> Ò
197
If we compare this to the account in Introductio seu medicus (cf. n. 42), it

seems that elephantiasis is still made the superior concept, which encom-
passes many different symptoms. In addition, Pseudo-Galen refers to the
ancient authorities of medicine and their habit to divide this disease into six
subgroups: elephantiasis, leontiasis, ophiasis, lepra, alopecia, and lobe.48
These may reflect varying manifestations of the disease at different stages in
the development, and also the fact that leprosy affects different parts depend-
ing on how powerfully the body’s immune system resists the infectious at-
tack. Taken separately, however, the six differential diagnoses may also
indicate various other diseases.49
Whatever we make of the ancient medical descriptions of leprosy and re-
lated diseases, the basic theory about black bile, and the purgation of its ex-
cess through menstruation, is what matters here. This model, in addition to
the inexactness of the ancient notions of cancer, ulcers, boils, sores, aposte-
mes, gangrene, and other disorders which tend to “eat” the skin or the limbs,
is sufficient to explain the listing of diseases in Text 29 (@# }
$,
# }$, <<< }<\). The last word, }<\, which
equates cancer/canker, is actually applicable to all four of them, as “devour-
ing the victim.” The first one, @# }
$, on the other hand, may also in-
clude the rest of the symptoms: leprosy will in time result in boils and nod-
ules, but also sores, ulcers, loss of limbs due to secondary gangrene. The
foul-smelling pus, which ancient physicians used to connect with cancers,
will be pervasive in the decaying nerve-damaged tissue.
Yet another disease is under consideration in Text 29: blindness. Al-
though innumerable causes may bring about this impairment, there are two
links to consider here. One is that blindness is a frequent consequence of
leprosy. Due to loss of eye lashes, nerve damage, loss of sensation, paralysis,
and inflammatory processes (conjunctivitis, eye keratitis, iridocyclitis), a
leper is at great risk of eventually losing his or her eyesight. If we add the
awareness of this to the list of diseases explicitly mentioned in Text 29, the
last paragraph of the text is not as unexpected as it may seem. There is a link
å# Ñ #>

> _
#
¾}=#, "-
"å
+ _
· _ }Ó #> å.
48
Ps.-Gal. Introductio, 14, 757:
+ +
#
Ò% ^
> Ñ=
,
@# }
Ó, #
Ó, ¾}Ó, #Ò #% Ó #å". The symptoms adduced
in the six ailments are easily detected in a leper: the first indicates changes in the skin resem-
bling of an elephant’s hide as well as deformation of hands and feet (loss of fingers and toes)
due to neuritis and paralysis of the muscles; the “lion disease” accounts for the tuberous nodu-
lation on the forehead and face; ophiasis compares the loss of skin to a serpent’s sloughing of
the same; scaliness (lepra) was described above; “fox disease” (alopecia) is “a whitening
change of the skin, through which the hair ages and falls of from the root” (19, 431); “lobe,”
finally, is the mutilation of the extremities, easily injured because the leper has lost sensation
and cannot guard himself against burns or other damage.
49
On the problematic relation between ancient and modern terminology and perception of
diseases, see NUTTON 2004, 28f.
198
missing in the author’s train of thought, but, considering the fact that the text
seems to be notes taken down, or a sketch, this is not so remarkable.
The other potential connection of blindness to the subject matter in Text
29 is the importance commonly placed on the menstruant’s gaze. The eye, so
filled with superficial blood vessels, was imagined to have a special relation
to menstrual matter, and therefore capable of carrying pollution as well as
magical and detrimental powers.50 Sight was believed to form a bond be-
tween performer and recipient, and made it necessary to avoid the dangerous
glances of a menstruating woman.51 A passage from Columella seems to
have influenced medieval tradition. In Res rustica, he advises the farmer
“not to allow a woman to enter a field with cucumbers and gourds, because
their vigorous growth will wither through contact with her. And if she is
menstruating, she will even with her glance kill newly planted shoots.” Al-
though it is perfectly clear that the whole passage deals with greenery—the
next sentence tells us to soak the seed in milk before sowing, to get a tender
and delightful cucumber—later commentators made this a reason to bar
women from looking at newborn children.52 In Text 29 blindness as punish-
ment for menstrual intercourse is only tacitly inferred, but it was made ex-
plicit in similar communications, by Thomas Aquinas among many others.53
Leprosy was also referred to as punishment for lustful and covetous glances.
All in all, menstruation, eye-sight, blindness, and leprosy come together in
an intricate web of connections in ancient and medieval thinking. Add to this
the biblical tradition that blindness could be God’s way of punishing people.
The story in John 9 does not imply a general denial of sin as a cause of dis-
ease: rather the opposite, since the disciples would otherwise not have asked
their question. Jesus’ healing of the blind man is a particular case. Neverthe-
less, it is important that Text 29 also gives a ”scientific” explanation for
blindness, not only pleading “charity” or “love” as the raison d'être for his
50
This belief is present not only in Greco-Roman tradition, as shown in the texts by Aristotle
and Pliny, but is found in Hindu, Zoroastrian, Muslim, and many other cultures as well.
51
The parallel notion of “the evil eye,” still present in many Mediterranean cultures, lies near
at hand; see further RAKOCZY 1996, 134–140.
52
Col. 11. 3. 50–51: Sed custodiendum est, ut quam minime ad eum locum, in quo vel cucu-
meres aut cucurbitae consitae sunt, mulier admittatur. Nam fere contactu eius languescunt
incrementa virentium. Si vero etiam in menstruis fuerit, visu quoque suo novellos fetus ne-
cabit. Cucumis tener et iucundissimus fit, si, ante quam seras, semen eius lacte maceres. The
fear was not restricted to menstruating women: the menstrual poison was believed to multiply
in the body at menopause, since there was no outlet for it anymore; see n. 87, below.
53
On Thomas Aquinas, see further below. His contemporary, Berthold of Ratisbon (d. 1272),
gave further suggestions of possible consequences: Denn das da empfangene Kind wird
entweder mit dem Teufel behaftet oder es wird aussätzig [i.e. leprous] oder es bekommt die
fallende Sucht oder es wird höckericht oder blind oder krumm oder stumm oder blödsinnig
oder es bekommt einen Kopf wie ein Schlegel... Und geschieht ihm dessen nichts..., so fährt es
eines unrechten Todes hin (cited from BROWE 1932, 4). Berthold also explained that so few
medieval Jews were leprous because they observed this law concerning intercourse. Jan Hus
(d. 1415) did not bring up blindness, instead asserting that, in addition to further impairment,
the children would be born squint-eyed or one-eyed(!) (BROWE 1932, 5, n. 25).
199
situation. The medical argumentation added by the author of Text 29 has its
roots in Hippocratic teachings. According to these, the humid embryo is set
in motion by fire, and is given its bodily form through a process of solidifi-
cation and condensation in the womb.54 Aristotle, who dissected bird fetuses,
found it quite problematic to explain the creation of the eyes: they seemed
too large for the head at first. His explanation was that they gradually shrink
from the surrounding heat and are perfected at the very last stage in the
womb (or egg). The eyes seem big because of their amount of moisture.
They and the brain take the longest time to form, i.e. to heat up and solidify
(GA, 743b–744b). This corresponds with the description in Text 29, explain-
ing why a premature birth would impede full development of the faculty of
vision.
A mindset established and transmitted

Put together, the biblical texts and the Greco-Roman medico-philosophical
tradition created a mindset around women’s bodies, menstruation, and
cleanness, which was not easily shaken. It became the starting-point for pa-
tristic authors, for rabbinic commentators, for sermon-writing clerics, and
also for those physicians and natural philosophers who in later medieval
centuries, either through unbroken Byzantine tradition or on the basis of
Avicenna’s and Averroes’ writings, transmitted and revived the Aristotelian
heritage. A selection of writings will be presented here, to give an idea of
how these beliefs persisted.
A text which has had great impact in its Latin version is the apocryphal
book of Ezra, labelled either 4 Ezra or 2 Esdras.55 The Greek version is not
extant, but there are citations from it in patristic texts.56 Among the evils and
sorrows which will take place before the coming of the Messiah, the angel
Uriel mentions this: “There shall be chaos also in many places, and fire shall
often break out, and the wild beasts shall roam beyond their haunts, and
54
> +
¯ ¬
^ > $

^
¨
Ô + ^

Ò (Hp. De diaeta, I, 9).
55
The Old Testament book following the (first) book of Ezra, Nehemiah’s book, is in some
LXX manuscripts called the second book of Ezra. The so-called third book of Ezra is an
apocryphal Greek version of both of these. 4 Ezra is a pseudepigraphical apocalyptic work
from the late 1st c. CE. Originally composed in Hebrew, it is preserved only in various transla-
tions from a lost Greek version. Citations in Greek patristic texts and an Oxyrrhyncus papyrus
containing a fragment from ch. 15 (POxy. 1010) confirm the earlier existence of the lost
Greek version, as does some of the phrasings in the Latin translation. The Syriac, Ethiopic,
Armenian, and Arab translations (plus fragments of a Coptic and a Georgian version) further
confirm the importance of this text in the early Christian Church. 4 Ezra is included in the
Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, and it has been appended to many printed versions of the Bible
since the 16th c. (among them King James Version).
56
METZGER 1983, 520. Quotes from 4 Ezra are found, e.g., in Clem. Al. Strom. 3.16 and in
the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas 12:1.
200
menstruous women shall bring forth monsters.”57 Here is a text which ap-
pears to correspond with Pliny’s views—or at least later readings of Pliny.
The English translation above is based on the Vulgate: et mulieres parient
menstruatae monstra. However, if we scrutinize the other branches of the
Ezra tradition this formulation seems askew. Frederik Klijn has collected the
textual evidence in his 1992 German translation “[n]ach dem lateinischen
Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen.” The text he renders is “und
Weiber werden Ungeheuer gebären.” I cite his apparatus in full, with the
abbreviated sigla written out:
et mulieres parient monstra, (Latin) | und an Frauen werden Zeichen gesehen

werden; es werden nämlich Fötusse geboren werden, ohne vollendet zu sein,
(Syriac) | und von Frauen wird ein Zeichen (sed plur ÄMS) geboren worden
(Ethiopic) | und Zeichen werden kommen von Weibern (Georgian) |.
Something must have happened with the Latin translation along the way of
its transmission, which has subsequently left its traces in many translations
into modern languages.58 Klijn shows that the word monstra is a translation
of the Greek
\
, a word which can mean both “monstrosities” and
“signs” in a more neutral sense, something which is reflected in the Syriac
and other translations. The word menstruatae, on the other hand, is only
present in the Latin version, and could have been inserted by mistake,
through dittography (menstr-/monstr-).59 Another possibility would be that a
scribe who wanted to “clarify” the reading in 4 Ezra simply added the word
menstruatae to mulieres. Whichever the case, the curse on menstruants got
new fuel, undeservedly this time, since menstruation was not even men-
tioned in the original text.
Another “monster myth” in Eastern literature is the gnostic story about
Sophia—Wisdom—bringing forth a child, Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with-
out the assistance of a father.60 This child, Yaldabaoth, created solely from
menstrual matter, turned out an androgynous, lion-faced monster, blind,
ignorant, weak and lustful.61 Although there is no outright reference to lep-
rosy here, it is worth noting that one of the main features of elephantiasis
mentioned in Greek medical texts was the facies leonina, or #
Ó. The
gnostic heterodoxy had a certain influence over the early Church, evident,
for instance, in the more or less continuing Christian repugnance toward the
57
4 Ezra, 5:8; translation METZGER 1983, 532.
58
Klijn’s Latin text is based upon ten manuscripts, the earliest of which is from the 7th c.
(KLIJN 1983, 13–15).
59
KLIJN 1983, 11f. and 34. A nasal abbreviation, as we have it in one manuscript (V) may
also have contributed to the misreading; cf. the apparatus in KLIJN 1983, 34).
60
The myth about Sophia and Yaldabaoth is transmitted in The Apocryphon of John, present
in different versions in three Nag Hammadi codices. The originally Greek text has survived
only through its Coptic translation. See further WALDSTEIN & WISSE 1995.
61
FISCHER-MUELLER 1990, 80.
201
material world and the body. Nevertheless, the “monster argument” in con-
nection with menstrual sex has been explored mainly in the Latin tradition,
perhaps due to Pliny’s authority. By and large, the impression is that the ban
on menstrual intercourse has been treated somewhat differently in Greek and
Latin texts. The tendency to indulge in possible consequences appears to be
more uninhibited in the Western medieval material compared to its Greek
and Byzantine counterparts. Did the Aristotelian revival in the West inspire
these misogynic treatises? Was it a sudden outbreak of leprosy in Western
Europe which made the argument useful? Or was it simply convenient for
the ecclesiastical authorities to use intimidating tactics to restrain debauch-
ery?62 This is not the place to fully investigate these matters; I can only
sketch part of the process through a few selected authors and texts.
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215 CE) provides an early juxtaposi-
tion of Leviticus and Aristotle. In The Instructor he asserts that Moses him-
self forbade husbands to approach their menstruant wives. “Because it is not
appropriate that bodily discharge should defile the fertile seed, soon to be a
human being, and indeed not that the filthy flow of matter and discharge
should swill out the seed to well-formed generation, robbing from it the fur-
rows of the womb.”63 The picture here is that of a plethora of humor flushing
the male seed out of the womb. It does not overtly state that deformity in the
fetus will come about. But the opposite correlation of “filthy flow” and “seed
to well-formed generation” left the field open for the readers—and later au-
62
Given the medical outlook of the time, the ban on menstrual sex can admittedly be seen as
comprehensible. Even so, one cannot discount the possibility that a Church agenda of pre-
ferred chastity lay behind some of these rules. Would all periods of “natural contraception”—
menstruation, pregnancy and lactation—have been off limits, if it were not for the patent
demand that all carnal intimacy had to have procreation as its goal? Why, if not to minimize
licentious behavior, did the Church spread the word that children created through intercourse
on Sundays and feast days fell victim to the same diseases as those begotten during menstrua-
tion? Cf. Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 44, 7: qui uxorem suam in profluvio positam agnoverit,
aut in die dominico aut in alia qualibet sollemnitate se continere noluerit, qui tunc concepti
fuerint, aut leprosi aut epileptici aut forte etiam daemoniosi nascuntur (CCSL 103, 199).
Likewise, Gregory of Tours held that children engendered on a Sunday would be born crip-
pled, epileptic or leprous (METZLER 2006, 88f.). On prescribed sexual abstinence on Sundays
and feast days, see BRUNDAGE 1987, 157–162. In Byzantine texts, this ban does not come
forth very strongly (DAGRON 1998, 168). Balsamon mentions it (PG 138, 900), but does not
indicate any grave consequences. In the Life of St. Andrew the Fool, though, the tone is differ-
ent: Andrew explains that a man who relapses into this offense could bring death upon him-
self (ll. 2869–2892; RYDÉN 1995, II, 198–202 and 335). According to an early Islamic source,
the hadith after Judhama bint Wahb, the prohibition of intercourse during lactation was not
upheld in Byzantium: “I was there when the Prophet was with a group saying, ‘I was about to
prohibit the ¢la [i.e. intercourse with breastfeeding women], but I observed the Byzantines
and the Persians, and saw them do it, and their children were not harmed’” (MUSALLAM 1983,
15f.).
63
Clem. Al., Paed. 2.10.92: <^
>
°%¯
<

-
< Ô #Ñ , ý
@Ó =Ñ @ _Ò
Ô_%. Â <Ñ %
û#<
Î =Ñ

^ å

> <å

^ Ò

’ ¾#Ó<
·=% <> #Ô + ¤ #Ô
Î ºÎ
¯ ¹# º Ô
-
=Ñ
Ò [+] < Ò % }^

¯ ò

Ô #Ñ%.
202
thors—to make their own conclusions. The wording of Clement echoes Philo
of Alexandria, who, likewise, points to fertility being the main concern.64
Philo only says that the seed will be swept away and utterly destroyed if
sown during menstruation—no talk of disabled babies here. In the same
paragraph he also criticizes the intemperate pleasure-seeking of men who
connect themselves with barren women, coveting the carnal enjoyment “like
boars or goats.” The menstruant is seen as temporarily barren: that is why
the husband should not waste his seed. Incidentally, in addition to describing
the incentive for non-procreational sex in words similar to those of Text 29,
’ $ $
, Philo’s text has the same imagery as Text 29: having
intercourse out of mere lust is to behave like swine, %
, just as the
exhortation in Text 29 was that we not “become like swine in the mire.”
One church father, Lactantius, seems to hold a middle ground in this mat-
ter:65 he does not mention menstrual intercourse, only unlimited lusts, but
there are wordings which indicate that his text was taken to mean that later
on. In Divinae Institutiones IV, 26, Lactantius speaks of the figurative mean-
ing of Christ’s sufferings and the significance of His divine works. After
mentioning the blind, deaf, dumb, and lame, he adds that He also cleansed
the stains and blemishes of defiled bodies:66
this [...] prefigured that by the instruction of righteousness His doctrine was
about to purify those defiled by the stains of sins and the blemishes of vices.
For they ought truly to be accounted as leprous and unclean [leprosi enim
vere atque elephantiaci debent haberi], whom either boundless lusts compel
to crimes, or insatiable pleasures to disgraceful deeds, and affect with an ev-
erlasting stain [labe] those who are branded with the marks of dishonourable
actions.67
Essential here is that Lactantius does not say that the lustful and dishonor-
able will be leprous, but that they may be seen as, held as leprous.68 Lactan-
tius is expounding the figurative meaning of Christ’s works and connects
64
Philo, Spec. Leg. 32–36: ¶
Ó% ~×
<Ò
, ¤ ®Ò
% <> ò,
##
> _× @ ~#Ó _Ò
% × }Ô % Ô Ã
× ¤
# < Ó Ô _Ñ ¯ =. [...]
#ò
<
³ }
Ê>
¯ Ê<×

× _#=
× ## Ã @#= Ó.
65
Born in Roman Africa in 240, Lactantius worked as a teacher of rhetoric in Nicomedia
(Izmit), but moved westwards during Diocletian’s persecutions. At the end of his life, he
tutored Emperor Constantine’s son in Trier. His life clearly illustrates how interwoven the
East and the West were at the time, and, consequently, that we cannot disregard the cultural
interchange between Latin and Greek texts.
66
In accordance with the Old Testament purity laws, the people with defiled bodies would
logically include lepers and the woman with an issue of blood (see Mt 8, Mk 1, Lk 5, and Lk
17, on Jesus healing lepers; Mt 9, Mk 5, and Lk 8, on the woman who had bled for twelve
years).
67
COXE 1989, 127.
68
Cf. Ps.-Justin Martyr, n. 24, above.
203
leprosy with lustful deeds, but on a symbolic plane. Nevertheless, his last
sentence is ambiguous: the word labes may be taken for destruction, ruin in
a more common sense, or it may stand for spot, stain.69 Although, according
to Lactantius, the sinners themselves are those branded with the marks of
shameful actions, the later tradition may have reinterpreted this as if it were
the offspring that was marked. Likewise, the nuance in debent haberi, was
dropped: the almost unanimous verdict of later writers became that they (the
children) will be leprous. The passage in Divinae Institutiones is also inter-
esting from another point of view: it presents an early instance of the word
combination “leprosus et elephantiacus”; as we will see, this phrase turns up
time and again in both Greek and Latin texts on the subject of menstrual
intercourse.
Around 380 CE the Didascalia was expanded and revised to be part of the
Apostolic Constitutions, a collection of canonical and liturgical instructions.
Though the section on women’s fluxes differs significantly from its precur-
sor, it nevertheless presents a relatively balanced view on the issue. In Const.
App. 6. 28 we read that husbands should not approach their wives when their
natural purgations appear, “out of concern for those engendered.”70 This
could indicate adherence to the view that children would fall victim to de-
formity or illness (even if that is not stated outright), but it could also be that,
just as in the case of Clement of Alexandria, above, there is an understanding
here that none at all are born out of menstrual sex. The context is very much
focused on procreation as such: one should not have intercourse at all if not
to bring forth children, for it is not befitting for a lover of God to be a lover
of pleasure.71 Note that a few lines earlier the text actually states that the
menses, }¤ Ñ=, are not abominable to God. The medical expla-
nation, that they were designed to regulate the accumulation of humor and
strengthen the woman, is recognizable from Aristotle, although in this text
God himself is responsible for the arrangement.72 This view on menses is at
variance with the one in Leviticus. There is no impurity in menstruation:
instead it is pleasure and licentiousness which are impure and abominable.
69
One may also note that the word labes is related to the Greek word #", which was a
terminus technicus for leprosy or elephantiasis (see above, p. 198). Cf. Theodoret of Kyrros
(ca. 393–ca. 466), Quaestiones in Octateuchum, ed. Fernández Marcos & Sáenz-Badillos, p.
172 (in Leviticum, qu. 21): } <Ñ
@
¯
Ô
} Ó #å" #Ò
< =,
^
å
@ Ó
#
× Ó
å
.
70
Const. App. 6. 28, 55–61: } + }Ò%
< Á · ¤
_Ò=% Ó
< %Ò%· < ~ ×· “£> < <Ñ,
}Ó, @ }Ò´ ÷ << .”
71
This is stated clearly regarding intercourse during pregnancy ( @ Ó% < < Ò
^
^) and prostitution ( @ ø <Ò). In the case of adultery, the
unsure status of the children is seen as a problem (
Ô
Ê×
).
72
Const. App. 6. 28, 48–51: Âû
÷ }¤ Ñ= " #
¤ Î,
¤
× "Ó < @
=Ò´
Ñ % _Ñ %
Ó

Ò Ê_Ô, Ã
@ Óø =Ò
> # .
204
Jerome’s view on menstruants stands in stark contrast to the Apostolic

Constitutions. “There is nothing filthier than the menstruant,” says Jerome
(ca. 347–420).73 Now, we are back in Leviticus again, where everything a
menstruant touched became unclean. In his commentary on Ezekiel 18:6, we
have an early reference to impairment of the fetus due to menstruant sex:
Each month women’s heavy and sluggish bodies are alleviated through an
emission of impure blood. They say that if a man has intercourse with a
woman at that time, the fetus will contract the defect of the semen, so that
lepers are born from this conception. And disfigured bodies of either sex,
with shrunken or enormous limbs, will be the degenerate result of the corrupt
blood.74
That Jerome has two words for leprosy is worthy of note: this phrase, leprosi
et elephantiaci, was repeated in several treatises and sermons throughout the
centuries, and has its parallel also in Text 29.75
Isidore of Pelousion has been called a pupil of John Chrysostom (by Ni-
kephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos), something which is chronologically pos-
sible though not confirmed. In three letters this presbyter and monk from
Egypt explains why the Law prohibits lepers and others who suffer involun-
tary diseases from entering sacred spaces. Whereas in Leviticus lepers and
menstruants were two separate groups, each in its own way subject to the
purity laws, there is now total symmetry between leprosy and menstrual sex.
Why did the lawgiver not permit the leprous inside the sancta? Because their
parents had been lascivious and intemperate, Isidore says (
¤ < $
73
Nihil immundius menstruata, quæ quidquid attigerit, immundum facit (Jerome, Comm. in
Zech. 13:1, PL 25, 1517).
74
Per singulos menses, gravia atque torpentia mulierum corpora, immundi sanguinis effu-
sione relevantur. Quo tempore si vir coierit cum muliere, dicuntur concepti fœtus vitium
seminis trahere: ita ut leprosi et elephantiaci ex hac conceptione nascantur, et fœda in utro-
que sexu corpora, parvitate vel enormitate membrorum, sanies corrupta degeneret (Jerome,
Comm. in Ezek. 18:6, PL 25, 173).
75
Sharon Faye Koren states that “the Council of Nicea (325 CE) warned that husbands who
approach their menstruating wives risk elephantiasis and leprosy for themselves and their
unborn children” (KOREN 2004, 331). But this needs rectification: the decree in question
comes from the Arabic spuria, later additions to the twenty officially established canons of
the Council. These 80 canons (in Turrianus’ edition) or 84 (in Abraham Ecchelensis’) “pre-
tend to be translations of lost Greek originals, but are demonstrably falsifications made for
various special purposes” (DOWNEY 1958, 228). According to Carl Joseph Hefele, they are of
much later origin (HEFELE 1855, 348f.; Hefele’s examples indicate a terminus post quem in
the 5th, 6th, and even 10th c., for some of them). Canon 29, on the menstruant’s exclusion from
mass, is reprinted in MANSI 1759, II, 990 (from Ecchelensis’ edition; notice that this canon is
not included in Turrianos’ edition, which is why it is not mentioned in The Select Library of
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; PERCIVAL 1977). The prohibition of Canon 29 is extended to
cover menstrual intercourse in Caput VIII of the “Sanctions and Decrees by the Same 318
Holy Fathers,” also translated from Arabic by Ecchelensis (MANSI, II, 1038). For our pur-
poses, the Arabic spurious canons cannot help establishing how these ideas became part of the
teachings of the Church, but the word combination of elephantiasis et leprae morbo suggests
the wide dissemination of the tradition, in Arabic as well as Greek and Latin texts.
205
<\% #%).76 To curb the parents’ intemperance, put reins on their
lust, and set a limit to the copulation, the law on lepers was established.
From untimely intercourse polluted and ugly-looking bodies (=

_=¯
) are born.77 In the letter to Valens, Isidore elucidates the
position of those who are born leprous: it is not those who are born out of
this $ who are retributed most severely, but the parents. The former
group may not consider it a punishment, long used to the illness as they are.
Conversely, the punishment on the latter group is pernicious, while instead
of seeing their offspring surpass them they see them debarred from the holy
assembly. For those who suffer involuntarily, the misfortune is lighter to
bear, but the pain is unbearable for those who know that it is a sign of their
deliberate intemperance. This standpoint is important for our understanding
of the role assigned to lepers in late ancient society: far from being seen as
mere outcasts and condemned sinners, lepers could actually be regarded as
blessed. In their infirmity and suffering, they had, according to church au-
thorities, already endured purgatory and were thereby closer to paradise.
Gregory of Nazianzos called leprosy the Sacred Disease (a term traditionally
used for epilepsy), and Gregory of Nyssa tried to convince his congregation
not to withdraw from lepers but instead follow the Lord’s example, and ac-
cept, feed, and embrace them, thereby earning salvation for their own souls
as well.78 Basil the Great and John Chrysostom acted accordingly, initiating
the construction of leprosaria in Caesarea and just outside Constantinople.
These were never intended for expulsion or confinement, but for the benefit
and health of the lepers. That this view lasted through the centuries, is shown
from Theodore Balsamon’s testimony that lepers in twelfth-century Constan-
tinople continued to live with healthy people (PG 138, 552).79
The Latin tradition on the prohibition of menstrual intercourse almost
unanimously carries the stamp of Jerome’s account. Isidore of Seville (ca.
560–636) is a rare exception. Indeed, he communicates Pliny’s views on the
menstruum’s poisonous quality for crops, et cetera. (Etym. XI. 140–142).
Although he has much information on portents and monsters, he does not
explicitly say that they are created from menstrual intercourse, only that
“after many menstrual days the semen is no longer germinable because there
76
Isid. Pel., Ep. 3.46; PG 78, 761–764. The same point is borne out in Ep. 4.141 (ed. Évieux,
Ep. 1251; PG 78, 1220–21). In the former letter, Isidore gives a telling explanation as to why
the husbands approach their wives before the purgation is over: they think the woman is
faking it ($
#=
¤ <).
77
Isid. Pel., Ep. 4.117 (ed. Évieux, Ep. 1489; PG 78, 1192).
78
Gr. Naz., De pauperum amore, PG 35, 865; Gr. Nyss., In illud: Quatenus uni ex his fecistis
mihi fecistis (=de pauperibus amandis II), PG 46, 471–489. On the rise of Christian philan-
thropy and the sermons of the two Gregories, see HOLMAN 1999.
79
The same message is present in Matthew Blastares’ Syntagma of imperial and canonical
law, from ca. 1335. He refers to John Nesteutes, i.e. Patriarch John IV, d. 525 (Blastares,
Collectio alphabetica. Kappa, 28). For further examples of compassionate treatment of lepers,
and how this tradition also reached Western Europe, see MILLER & SMITH-SAVAGE 2006.
206
is no menstrual blood to irrigate the ejaculate.” A couple of centuries later,

Hrabanus Maurus (780-856) stated loud and clear that children will be born
leprous and subject to elephantiasis because they were conceived at the time
of menstruation (Comm. in Ezech. 18:6; PL 111, 706C). This “truth” was
thereafter repeated in numerous treatises in the West, whether they dealt
with theology, natural philosophy, or medicine. I will just mention a couple
of examples. In 1195 Cardinal Lotario dei Segni (soon to be Pope Innocent
III) wrote his treatise De miseria condicionis humane. This became ex-
tremely popular: extant in 672 manuscripts, it had seen fifty-two printed
editions by the middle of the seventeenth century.80 According to Lotario, the
primary reason for corruption of the semen is the carnal intercourse in itself,
the fact that it is performed in libidinous fervor and foul wantonness.81 Chap-
ter four of De miseria presents an interesting mixture of ancient ideas and
religious teachings, not unlike what we meet in Text 29. The ancient notion
that menstrual fluid is what nourishes the fetus in the womb is presented.
Using Pliny—without mentioning the source—Lotario points to the detri-
mental qualities of the fluid for crops, fruits, and for dogs becoming rabid, et
cetera. Fetuses conceived in it will contract the defect of the semen, and as a
consequence they will, due to corruption, be born leprose.82 Just as we saw in
Jerome and in Hrabanus Maurus, two words for leprosy, leprosus and ele-
phanticus, are used to explain what will happen to the fetus. Lotario con-
cludes that this is the reason why Moses in his law reckoned the menstruant
unclean and condemned whosoever came near her to be killed. Likewise,
monstrosities derive from the parents’ shameful behavior, as Lotario ex-
plains in the ensuing chapter.83
From the twelfth century onward, the awareness of Aristotle’s teachings
was renewed in Western Europe thanks to translations from Arabic. Earlier,
the ban on menstrual sex was primarily presented in theological tracts; now
natural philosophy and astrology loom large, and gynecological treatises
80
LEWIS 1980, 3.
81
Quis enim nesciat concubitum etiam coniugalem nunquam omnino committi sine pruritu
carnis, sine fervore libidinis, sine fetore luxurie?Unde semina concepta fedantur, maculantur
et vitiantur, ex quibus tandem anima infusa contrahit labem peccati, maculam culpe, sordem
iniquitatis (De miseria, ed. Maccarrone, I, iii, 1). Cf. also the 15th-c. treatise De lepra, where
the anonymous author frankly states that leprous children are generated through menstrual sex
because at that time of the month the woman enjoys sex more (Istis temporibus pueri leprosi
maxime generantur in conceptione menstruantis quia tunc mulier tempore menstruorum plus
delectatur in coitu quia sanguis eius mordicat et sic venit titillatio. Et sic cum puer concipitur
in fluxu menstruorum sine dubio incurrerit lepram vel scabiem; Basel MS D.III.10, cited from
DEMAITRE 1985, 334).
82
De miseria I, iv, 4: Concepti fetus vitium seminis contrahunt, ita ut leprosi et elephantici ex
hac corruptione nascantur.
83
De miseria I, v, 1: Quidam enim tam deformes et prodigiosi nascuntur, ut non homines, sed
abhominationes potius videantur (the spelling of abhominatio suggests that Lotario saw an
etymological connection to homo instead of omen – monsters as non-human or sub-human
creatures).
207
play a weightier part. Avicenna (980–1037) taught that leprosy could be due
to heredity and to the condition in the womb, as in the case of conception
during menstruation.84 Rabbinic teachings were also part of this interchange
of ideas, and since Persian, Arabic, and Jewish philosophy had absorbed
much Hellenistic material, it is often hard to distinguish between different
paths, and directions, of influence. The medical centers, such as Salerno,
were important junctions for the discussion of philosophical and medical
theory as well as medical practice.85 The Trotula texts on women’s medicine,
created and compiled in Salerno, became an integrative part of European
gynecological expertise.86 Other texts, just as, or even more, popular were far
more speculative in their outlook: Pseudo-Albertus Magnus’ De secretis
mulierum expatiates on the venomous character of the menstruant, and, to-
gether with the commentators on the text, gives several pieces of advice on
why one should avoid menstrual sex: the outcome for the male is leprosy
and/or cancer in the male member, and the fetus will become leprous or epi-
leptic. 87
Roughly, one may distinguish between three different kinds of texts
which convey the tradition of harm caused by menstrual intercourse: texts of
(mainly) theological, philosophical, and medical content. Sometimes these
aspects come together and the impact of one upon the other is unmistakable.
Text 29 would belong to the theological sphere, even though medical theory
is used to support the dogmas. If we return to texts by church authorities, we
may mention Thomas Aquinas as a representative of the Catholic tradition.
Thomas refers to Jerome on the matter in question, but develops the number
of diseases mentioned: “thus is a deformed, blind, lame, leprous offspring
conceived: so that those parents who are not ashamed to come together in
84
Avicenna, The Canon of Medicine / Al-Qanun fi al-tibb, IV.3.iii.1; cf. DEMAITRE 1985, 332.
85
Sharon Faye Koren shows how the gynecological theories of Isaac the Blind (1165–1235)
and Nahmanides (1194–1270) are a mixture of kabbalistic theosophy, medicine, and natural
philosophy. Their attitudes towards menstruation and the niddh (menstruant) correspond
closely with Galenic and Aristotelian models, though, naturally, there was a long rabbinic
tradition to build on as well. The association of menstrual blood and inflammatory skin dis-
ease (leprosy) is expounded on, but Koren also mentions the Jewish tradition that children
engendered during menstruation were impudent. The male participant in menstrual sex is
punished with premature death, according to rabbinic teachings; Nahmanides, and other kab-
balists, reinterpreted this to signify destruction of the soul (KOREN 2004).
86
See, for example, GREEN 2001, Introduction.
87
The menstruant’s hair is filled with venom; her body expels toxics which makes men in her
vicinity hoarse; by their glance, old women who still menstruate (and some who do not) can
poison the eyes of children lying in their cradles; non-menstruating women are even more
seriously infected, more toxic, because the menstrual flow has a purgative function, et cetera.
Beside Aristotle, his main authority, Pseudo-Albert relies heavily on Avicenna and Averroes.
De secretis mulierum, composed in the late 13th or early 14th c., saw abundant proliferation in
manuscript and printed form. Moreover, it had an impact on witchcraft persecution by serving
as a direct source for the 15th-c. inquisitorial treatise, Malleus Maleficarum (LEMAY 1992, 49–
58).
208
sexual intercourse have their sin made obvious to all.”88 That he explicitly
mentions blindness may give some perspective to the fact that the com-
piler/author of Text 29 saw fit to comment upon that kind of impairment.
The Byzantine Church also continued to express its concerns about men-
strual intercourse, but in a more moderate tone. The few examples I shall cite
here are all from the twelfth century and later, coinciding, perhaps inciden-
tally, with the intensified discussion of these matters in the West. It is not
impossible that a fuller treatment of the Greek tradition would alter this pic-
ture. The canonist Theodore Balsamon, mentioned above for his views on
lepers, does not discuss menstrual intercourse, focusing only on whether a
woman could be baptized when menstruating, if she could participate in
Communion, et cetera.89 Nikephoros Blemmydes, who in fact includes quite
a number of references to John Chrysostom in his work, nevertheless has
Isidore of Pelousion as his only authority on the question of menstrual inter-
course (cf. Isidore’s views above). This speaks against the attribution of Text
29 to Chrysostom.90 One aspect which could support the association, is
Chrysostom’s frequent usage of medical discourse in the sermons. Neverthe-
less, this is not particular to him, but appears in other patristic texts as well.91
Finally, Michael Glykas, in his @ $ X
Y * Y [#*, a text
that, interestingly enough, we know the scribe of Gr 8, Theodoros, had ac-
cess to:92 there Glykas deals with the question whether unborn babies who
die prematurely, do so because God foresaw that they would turn out ex-
ceedingly wicked (question 37). The author refutes this, arguing that in such
a case none of us would have been born, and “besides, it is from natural
causes that the infants suffer this, and are often carried off.” Then Glykas
adds Ì < ©
¤ ·%
å
´ < #³,
= ¤ ¥å´
Î £#å
Õ ,
^

×-
<Ó
(a sickly man who is intimate with a sickly woman will bring
forth sickly children). The reference here is to Isidore of Pelousion, the same
letter that was mentioned above (Ep. 4.141). But Glykas foregoes menstrual
intercourse, instead emphasizing the part of Isidore’s letter where he states
that lepers can be sick due to heredity and not only as the result of their par-
ents’ intemperance. God does not want to act on his foresight, patiently
awaiting our remorse instead. In addition, He has given us herbs and medical
science, so that we act wisely to remove imminent threats to our health. Oth-
88
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., question 64, 3.
89
Cf. VISCUSO 2005, 321.
90
John Chrysostom is referred to, now and then, in connection with—what we would call—
misogynic views, for instance in the Malleus Maleficarum, just mentioned: De mulierum vero
malitia differitur [...] Criso(stomus) super Mat. xix (f. C5r in the editio princeps from 1487;
ed. SCHNYDER 1991, 41; cf. PG 56, 803). The pseudo-Chrysostomic sermon included in Gr 8
certainly substantiates this connection, and this, more commonly aimed, scorn of wicked
women, may be what lies behind the attribution of Text 29 to the Antiochene church father.
91
On medical discourse in John Chrysostom and other patristic authors, see FRINGS 1959.
92
Theodoros copied Glykas’ @ $ X
Y * Y [#* in Par. gr. 3045 (see p. 57).
209
erwise, Michael Glykas says, we would soon see our destruction from negli-
gence and not due to natural causes. The destruction not coming from natural
causes is our own responsibility, as is the caution we take deciding when to
have intercourse. This is not spelled out by Glykas, but the knowledge on
this seems to have been present in Byzantine minds, nonetheless. Glykas
even refers to Chrysostom in his argument (Ú ~ _^
¤ <#
Ñ
}), so the question here is: does God’s patience, =Ó, match up
with the < in Text 29? Could Theodoros himself be the one who added
the last paragraph of Text 29, acting on what he may have read in @ $
X
Y * Y [#*? The fact that the next text in Gr 8, by Mark
Eugenikos, brings up the question of predetermination and the end of life, as
well as the correspondence between our sins and the penalties we must en-
dure, is also a striking coincidence, in relation to the problems stated in Text
29. Tying the discussion on intemperance and menstrual intercourse to the
two preceding, misogynic, texts in Gr 8 was unproblematic, but now it turns
out that there is also a logic within the texts following Text 29. The theologi-
cal problems concerning the end of life, sin and retribution, and the question
of how God endures the fact that so many sinners perish (Texts 30, 31 and
32), are, to my mind, a compatible line of thought which has everything to
do with iniquity and retaliation, reflected also in the dilemma of how disease
and God’s charity add up (Text 29).
Wrapping up this discussion, I would like to stress the continuing influence

of the ancient Greco-Roman world of ideas; the early Church could easily
adapt these thoughts to suit their own beliefs, whether on marriage and vir-
ginity, on women, or on disease. From Pliny’s “chaste elephant” and Plu-
tarch’s discussion on the right time for intercourse (at best never, or at least
only in the dark, so as not to be too overwhelmed and excited, and definitely
not on a day of worship) you need not add much to have the Christian dog-
mas fully-fledged.93 The same link is operating when we come to the prohi-
bition of menstrual intercourse. Without the ongoing—and, in the West,
reborn—interest in the ancient heritage of moral-philosophical and medical
works, the restrictions on women’s lives might have been set differently.
Had not women’s bodies persistently been associated with weakness, filth,
poison and, subsequently, leprosy, the more liberal views of Didascalia
might have stood a better chance to have a lasting impact on Christianity.
This state of affairs is, on a small scale, present in Text 29 as well. The au-
thor merges ancient Greek medical and moral views with the Church’s dis-
course on temperance, uses numerological speculation (convergent with
Rabbinic beliefs) and counts on the Old Testament notion of retribution on
later generations. But he also prepares for another, more compassionate view
on the disabled, in accordance with New Testament teachings, even though
93
Pliny, HN, VIII, 12f.; Plut., %+ "

, Mor. 8, question 6.
210
still anxious to make this fit with “scientific” explanation. This makes Text
29 a fascinating example of Byzantine culture as the recipient and trans-
former of cultural influx from various times and places, just as Codex Upsa-
liensis Graecus 8, in its turn, may be seen as such a transformer, with its
unique combination of texts from different times, genres, and cultures.
211
The method of ramplion: Text 66

As the last item of codicological unit twelve (U12), in a quire which crowds
a dozen other short texts of various kinds (philosophical commentaries, epi-
grams, lists of this and that), there is a condensed manual on geomantic divi-
nation (ff. 283v–285v). The text opens with a zodiac wheel, describes how to
construct a geomantic chart—the basic “map” with the help of which one
could then find out what the outcome of any query would be—and gives
further information on “houses” and planets, on geomantic figures, favorable
and unfavorable days, et cetera. Geomantic procedure, which could be said
to comprise an arithmetical base and an astrologically inspired superstruc-
ture, has been portrayed as “a poor man’s astrology,” since one could do
away with intricate astrolabes and still keep the aura of a qualified and de-
tached divination through the association with astrological concepts.94 Thus,
in older manuscript catalogs, this kind of text was sometimes mistakenly
classified as astrology per se. This was also the case with Text 66, which
Graux described as Astrologica quaedam.95
The mixture of texts in U12 may seem a little odd to a twenty-first-
century reader: the main text, which occupies slightly more than two quater-
nions, consists of four lengthy excerpts from Theodoret’s Cure of the Pagan
Maladies. Theodoret, who was bishop of Kyrros in the mid-fifth century,
wrote many works mainly on exegetic subjects, although he is perhaps best
known for his Church History. The Cure is an example of his apologetic
authorship, in which he defends Christianity against pagan ideas and prac-
tices, although he actually does this with the help of Greek philosophy. Cou-
ple this patristic text with the lists of patriarchates and bishoprics further on
in the unit, and a divinatory/astrological text would appear to be a little out
of place. Actually, if we take a closer look at what passages our scribe Theo-
doros chose to include from the Cure, the incongruity may be less obvious
than we thought. The excerpts in Gr 8 concern cosmos, matter, the creation,
the nature of human beings, the soul, providence, et cetera.96 Worth noting
here is that the scribe of Gr 8 skipped paragraphs 17–31 of Book 4, which
indeed deal with the stars, the sun and moon, phases and eclipses on an ele-
mentary level, but which also express disdain for this form of knowledge.
Theodoret finds it futile to ask how many myriads of stades the distance to
94
Ibn Khaldûn (1332–1406) maintained that “[w]hen the sand diviners came, they discontin-
ued use of the stars and the positions of the spheres, because they found it difficult to establish
the altitude of stars by means of instruments and to find the adjusted (positions of the) stars by
means of calculations. Therefore, they invented their combinations of figures. […] Many city
dwellers who had no work, in order to make a living, tried sand divination” (IBN KHALDÛN,
Muqaddimah I, 204; transl. Rosenthal, 1958, 228).
95
GRAUX & MARTIN 1889, 328. The information in Sofía Torallas Tovar’s description of Gr 8
is just as meager: “Expl. fol. 283v: ilegible. Sigue un círcolo con los signos del horóscopo al
final de la página. Fol. 284r: Astrologica quaedam” (TORALLAS TOVAR 1994, 237).
96
Thdt. Affect. 4.5–16 and 4.32–42; 5.8–52; 6.11–26.
212
the moon is, while, for example, ignoring how deep the sea is.97 On the other
hand, in paragraphs 38–42, which are included in the Gr 8 excerpts, the dis-
cussion touches upon the Logos as Demiurge, generating the sun, moon, and
planets for the sake of time counting. Here Theodoret refers to Euripides, to
underscore that the stars are the servants of men: “but you, you accept to
serve your servants and credit them with divine majesty.”98 The excerpts
from Book 5 and 6 bring up other subjects which may be of importance in
connection with divination: human fortune and misfortune, freedom and
necessity, destiny and providence. Nevertheless, even if a text on astrology
and divination could somehow be seen to fit in with the patristic text, it is
unlikely that the excerpts from the Cure were included in the codicological
unit with divination in mind. Rather the other way around: questions of
man’s destiny, the function of the stars (set up in accordance with God’s
plan for man), fortune and adversity, as included in an authoritative Christian
text, could secondarily have triggered Theodoros to put the geomantic text
here. A view of planets and fixed stars as man’s servants could actually open
up for the use of astral divination, letting knowledge about the “servants”
improve one’s life, so to speak. Some readers may disagree with my attempt
to create a meaningful connection between these two texts, and, rightly, one
should not stretch this endeavor too far. My impression, though, is that
Theodoros was a thoughtful copyist, who knew what he was up to. An alter-
native way of looking at this juxtaposition would be to say that an unlikely
combination of texts is part of the charm of late and post-Byzantine miscel-
lanies: lendings and borrowings of texts, cultural crossovers, are characteris-
tic of this pan-Mediterranean literary culture. These “Arabic” divinatory
texts were translated and imported into Spain, Provence, Italy, and Byzan-
tium, just as the Greek and Latin patristic texts continued to be part of the
heritage of Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, and beyond. Even so, before we take a
closer look at Text 66, some perspective on the use of divination in Byzan-
tium could be of value.
Magic and divination in Byzantium

Byzantine magical practices can basically be seen as links in a long and rich
tradition going back to imperial and Hellenistic Greece, and in some cases
having precursors as far back as the Mesopotamian royal courts of the sec-
ond and first millennia BCE. Rather than trying to pinpoint a precise origin
of these arts, it is important to stress the high degree of cultural interchange
that has allowed ideas and practices to travel back and forth throughout the
centuries. Such is the obvious case with astrology, which combines Aristote-
lian physics and Hellenistic astronomy with Mesopotamian and Egyptian
97
Thdt. Affect. 4.24.
98
Thdt. Affect. 4.41; Eur. Ph. 546.
213
elements, sees further developments in second- and third-century India and

later in Sasanian Iran, and, after being improved by Arabic astronomers as to
measuring and calculation, finds its way back to Byzantium and to Western
Europe.99
To find sources of information on magical and divinatory practices, we
must for the most part turn to written evidence. Even though there is ample
archaeological evidence for the use of amulets, phylacteries, and other in-
struments employed in magical procedures, it becomes increasingly difficult
to evaluate these in the Late Byzantine era, when the use of enkolpia—
pendant crosses, icons, and portable relics—also played a part in the official
orthodox rite.100 No doubt the distinction between sanctioned and forbidden
contact with the supernatural was basically upheld by the Byzantines them-
selves.101 And yet, since Christian culture is ever so aware of demonic pow-
ers and their workings, it would be more surprising than not if this awareness
did not manifest itself in various ways in Byzantine society.102 The written
sources from late antiquity and the early Byzantine era are predominantly
magical papyri; literary sources in various genres also provide glimpses.
Documentary evidence from trials gives another perspective on the alleged
or actual practice of magic.103 Among Palaiologan manuscripts we find a
considerable number of treatises and handbooks more overtly dedicated to
magic. Would this textual material be representative of Byzantine concep-
tions in general? Though there is no definite answer to that question, the
chance is that in focusing on the literate part of society, i.e. the educated and
often more affluent, we at least counter the modern misconception that “irra-
tional” and “superstitious” thinking would belong only to the lower strata of
society who “did not know better.” Actually, no such correlation is to be
found.104 Another misreading would be to put magic in opposition to more
99
See further PINGREE 1997, passim.
100
As Brigitte Pitarakis affirms, the use of Pre-Christian amuletic images actually continued
throughout all Byzantine periods, at the same time as their Christian counterparts were en-
dowed with multivalent functions, both apotropaic and devotional (PITARAKIS 2006, 180).
101
That this dividing line was thin is apparent from the vehement claims of several authors
that they only write about astrology and similar pursuits on a theoretical level, never to actu-
ally practise it themselves. Was this perhaps a necessary defense against condemnation from
stricter orthodox circles? Cf. Paul Magdalino, who discusses whether in the time of Michael
Psellos and Symeon Seth an attempt was made to “scientificate” astrology, separating it from
other forms of magic (MAGDALINO 2006, 95–96 and 121). On the attitudes of Psellos and
Michael Italikos towards magic, see also DUFFY 1995.
102
For a summary of demonological beliefs current in Palaiologan times, see GREENFIELD
1988, 307–326.
103
Carolina Cupane shows how the entries in the Constantinopolitan Patriarchal Register can
provide interesting insights into people’s everyday life and the measures taken by the secular
and ecclesiastical authorities to restrain unwanted activities (CUPANE 1980).
104
Astrologers from the middle and late Byzantine period were in fact likely to be “members
of the educated élite, associated with the imperial court and consulted by the rich and power-
ful” (MAGDALINO 2002, 37). Cf. Hans-Georg Beck’s view: “Es ist erstaunlich, wie weit ver-
breitet auch in den höchsten Kreisen die Praktiken der Mantik waren und was es sonst an
214
“rational” branches of expertise, such as mathematics, astronomy or medi-

cine. That distinction between different categories of thinking is of a much
later date. On the contrary, the manuscripts bear witness to magic being well
integrated with especially what we define as natural science. Just as in West-
ern Europe, it was the educated Byzantines, often medical experts, who in-
quired into and experimented with divination, alchemy, and astrology.105
To sum up: devices to try to foretell the future were manifold in Byzan-
tium and elsewhere. They included astrology, which was looked at with
skepticism by the Church, though it was at times practiced even at the impe-
rial court.106 Other arts of divination included the observation of natural phe-
nomena such as earthquakes and thunder, dream interpretation, and watching
the behavior of animals. One could also use various objects such as palms,
mirrors, a sheep’s shoulder-blades, or Bible verses, just to mention a few
examples of man’s inventiveness in his attempts to reveal hidden knowledge.
Divination based on letters and numbers was particularly in vogue in late
antiquity, and continued to be used during the Byzantine era in many differ-
ent ways.107 This familiarity with numerological applications in combination
with a widespread use of astrology as codified for example by Ptolemy,
probably prepared the ground for the subsequent circulation of geomantic
treatises as well. Here we may recall the categories which Varro (116–27
BCE) used for ancient divinatory arts: he meant that they could all be con-
nected to one of the four elements “terram, aerem, aquam, ignem: geoman-
tis, aeromantis, pyromantis, hydromantis.”108 These categories could, if we
simplify things a little, be said to describe Byzantine divination as well, but
for one important discrepancy: during Antiquity the term “geomancy” most
likely referred to the interpretation of earthquakes or cracks in the ground,
zauberischen Krimskrams gab. Selbst die Kaiser machen hier keine Ausnahme […]. Gelehrte
wie Michael Psellos, Patriarchen wie Michael Kerullarios und Historiker vom Format eines
Niketas Choniates waren überzeugt, dass an diesen Praktiken ‘etwas war’” (BECK 1978, 268).
105
The medico-magical manuscript Cod. Bonon. 3632, would seem to illustrate the caution
which scribes and writers of such books had to take. The physician John of Aro (son of
Aaron?), who copied the manuscript in 1442, did put his subscription and owner’s notices in
the book but always in cryptographic characters. In its 475 folios the manuscript contains
astrological, medical, and geomantic texts, dreambooks, spells, and much more. For John of
Aro’s subscription, see MCCOWN 1922, 23f. Lynn Thorndike, whose survey of the Western
magic tradition is still very important, explicitly states that he deals with the learned literature
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but he also points out that “astrological prediction
rode high in public favor, producing most of the ‘best sellers’ of the incunabula period”
(THORNDIKE 1934, vol. 4, 611).
106
Manuel Komnenos, for example, wrote a controversial defense of astrology, a science
which he considered necessary for both politics and medicine (MAGDALINO 2006, 109–132).
The Palaiologan emperors Andronikos III, John V, and Andronikos IV all consulted astrolo-
gers. Maria Mavroudi suggests that the volatile times and continually escalating political
troubles could have incited the Palaiologan rulers to resort to such predictions (MAGDALINO &
MAVROUDI 2006, 72).
107
KALVESMAKI 2006.
108
The quotation is preserved in Servius’ commentary to Vergil’s Aeneid (Serv. A. 3. 359).
215
whereas in the Middle Ages the term came to bear upon “sand divination”
instead, at least in Latin texts. This sand divination, or method of ramplion
as it is called in Text 66, is the subject approached here.
As we will see later on (p. 232), the origin of this art of divination is not
fully clear. But it seems likely that in the form outlined in Text 66 it reached
Byzantium and the Occident by way of Arabic influence, some time in the
twelfth or thirteenth century.109 The geomantic nomenclature used in Greek
manuscripts is often transliterated Arabic, even though the art is more often
introduced as Persian by Byzantine scribes.110 The name of the art commonly
met with in Greek manuscripts, º# (in some texts spelled out
º"# or º#) matches the Arabic word for sand, raml, and refers
to the method of “writing” in the sand, ashes or whatever medium was at
hand.111 The procedure could be modified by using things like grain, pebbles,
or even paper and ink.112 In some manuscripts the art also has a genuinely
Greek name, #
¬ or “stone chisel,” which probably refers to the tool
used for striking the sand or soil.113
109
An early reference often mentioned is the translation and versification of Al-Zan tã’s
geomantic treatise by the monk Arsenios in 1266 (inc. "$"# \}
$ ®,

#.; extant e.g. in Cod. Berol. 173, where a marginal addition says: õ¹
\%
£\¨
<#
| $ _^; CCAG 7, 49); the author Al-Zan tã (Ab ‘Abdal-
l h al-Zan tã) is referred to in several manuscripts, e.g. in Bonon. 3632, Neapol. II.C.33, Par.
gr. 2381, Par. gr. 2424, and Vindob. phil. gr. 108. Latin translations are attested from around
the mid-12th c., a couple of the earliest being by Hugh of Santalla and Gerard of Cremona
(CHARMASSON 1980, 93). Anne Regourd has discussed the manuscript situation and the lack
of scholarly editions for Al-Zan tã’s Arabic treatise, but I could not get access to this article
(REGOURD 2001).
110
Par. gr. 2491:
¯ ¯
\_
^ º#$; Par. gr. 2424: £=<^ #
-
$ Ä
º"#$, ¹
% % # <\
$; Cod. Laur. 86, 14: ²#$ û
>
$.
111
The term “geomancy” in Greek manuscripts often indicates that the text is a translation
from a Latin model. The procedure of sand divination was described in one of the earliest
Arabic sources as the act of tracing marks on the ground, al-ar bi ’l-ha (Ibn al-cAr bã, d. ca.
844 CE; FAHD 1966, 196). Variant terms are al-kha bi-raml, sand-writing, cilm al-raml, sand-
science, and
arb al-raml, sand-striking (FAHD 1978, 1128). Greek designations hinting at the
use of sand are
and
\_
¯ ® (sand divination, sand art; DELATTE &
DELATTE 1936, 577), and ®
(cf. CCAG 8:1, p. 71). To those one may add the
term
$
¯ ® (sand astronomy).
112
Joel Kalvesmaki mentions a Byzantine variant, where the geomantic figures were created
with the help of lines picked at random from the Gospels or the Psalter: one used the first four
letters in the line, checked whether the numbers they represented were odd or even, and put
up for each of them a single dot or a pair of dots accordingly to create the figure (KALVES-
MAKI 2006; as we will see below, this corresponds to the method of ramplion, where figures
are also made up of single or pairs of dots). This practice may, however, have been a Byzan-
tine adaptation of a more general usage: a similar case but with the use of the Kor’an (

"Ó"#
^ °%Ñ =) instead of the Bible, is indicated by the 15th-c. chronicler John Kananos
(De Constantinopoli oppugnata, 249f.). Cf. also Pieter van der Horst’s discussion of Jewish,
pagan, and early Christian oracle books (VAN DER HORST 1998).
113
DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 577f.; cf. TANNERY 1920, 322, and DESROUSSEAUX 1886, 542–
544. The use of a “stone chisel” might seem weird in connection with sand, but as an epigra-
pher’s implement it could perhaps count as a tool for “writing” in general, just as the verb
<#} was used for carving and engraving as well as for writing. In some manuscripts the
216
Geomantic texts in Greek have not attracted much scholarly attention and
several of the studies are a hundred years old by now. The only longer text
that has been edited is that of Parisinus graecus 2419, which Armand and
Louis Delatte published in 1936.114 Some excerpts from the same codex and
from Parisinus graecus 2424 (late 14th century), examined by Paul Tannery,
were presented posthumously in 1920; these studies of the subject are still
the most informative in the Byzantine area.115 This dearth of studies in Greek
geomancy justifies a presentation of Text 66, even though it is an incomplete
text of modest size. As we turn to the text the sequence will be the follow-
ing: first, the manuscript text is presented together with a translation. The
succinctness of the text makes it rather opaque even with a translation. Thus,
an explanation of the geomantic chart and of the underlying astrological
concepts will be added. Then we will return to the cultural background to
and dissemination of this divinatory art. Finally some thoughts are added on
the role of ramplion in late Byzantium.
rather sound-alike word #_

¬ is used instead of #
¬; here, of course, the
connection to #<_ (to obtain by lot) is easily applicable to the random element of geo-
mancy. The geomantic procedure is also suggestive of the way mathematical calculation was
performed during Antiquity. Archimedes used to sketch his circles and geometric figures in
sand. Cf. Plutarch, who banters about the sudden philosophical frenzy of Dionysius of Syra-
cuse at Plato’s arrival: the king’s palace was filled with dust by reason of the multitude of
men who were drawing their geometrical diagrams in it (Plut. Mor. I, 52D). The dustboard,
takht, which was used as a kind of minicalculator to perform Chinese and Hindu-Arabic
arithmetic, could also fit with the procedure of sand divination (LAM 1996, 40). A dustboard
functioned more or less like a wax tablet and a stylus, but with dust or clay instead of wax on
the board. An application of the same idea was actually in practice much later, in Swedish
elementary schools of the 19th c. The front desk in the class-room, where the youngest chil-
dren sat, was in fact a “sand desk” (sandbänk), where the beginners could perform their first
writing excercises, before moving on to the use of slate and, eventually, to pen and paper.
114
DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 591–658.
115
TANNERY 1920, 295–412, esp. pp. 354–368. On the Latin side, geomancy has been touched
upon more recently by, among others, Thérèse Charmasson (CHARMASSON 1980). Emilie
Savage-Smith has discussed the Arabic tradition in connection with a 13th-c. mechanical
device, an intricately elaborated gear with rotating dials, which functioned as a random gen-
erator of the geomantic figures without resort to sand or grain for the procedure (SAVAGE-
SMITH & SMITH 1980).
217
Text 66 (ff. 283v–285v)
A. (f. 283v)
` ¨ ×, ^, Ó ¶ å=, ¶=$, £_
\ ¨ Ó, µÒ%, £=Ò £$, }¬, ° %$ (° %$ cod.)
¶= ¨ <, Ó, ×

%=$, ¶%}$, |=$
²
$¨ <× %, _×, ¥_=Ô ²$, "¬, ° _¬
B. (f. 284r)
^ º#$ \= <$
¹
%¨ $ ¾$
%
%. ·_
+ >
^
^ \
# ^
(
# ^

cod.)
#. Á + <}
Ú
_% · =^
#<> @^
,
#, \ ·
,
#"
"
$=%
$%. + ,
$=%
>
$%. ¹
% ^
=# ¾$, Ä<
,
$=

\ . ^ + _¬
,
\ #^ .
+
^
#" >

\% _¯
#
.
$=%
>
"=.
#^ _¬
,
\
#^ . ¿
>
_
%

%

\%
\%, Ã

, ^ . >

% $% ^

". >

% ^
¤ .

¤
}

%
^
^ "$
> @
.
218
A. [The zodiac:] (f. 283v)

Three zodiac signs of spring—Ram, Bull, Twins—in the months of
Phamenoth116 (March), Pharmuthi (April), Pakhon (May).
Three zodiac signs of summer—Crab, Lion, Virgin—in the months of Payni
(June), Epiphi (July), Mesore (August).
Three zodiac signs of fall—Scales, Scorpion, Archer—in the months of
Thoth (September), Phaophi (October), Athyr (November).
Three zodiac signs of winter—Capricorn, Water-pourer, Fish—in the
months of Choiak (December), Tybi (January), Mechir (February).
B. [The procedure:] (f. 284r)

The method of ramplion is as follows: one beats out sixteen series of marks,
in groups of four,117 beginning from the left and ending in the form of a cir-
cle.118 The marks are drawn at random without any counting and are yoked
together in twos, and, for what is left, if it is an even number we take two
marks and put them up separately; if it is one we put one mark up separately.
In this manner we work out the series complete, all sixteen of them, and we
arrange them by fours. They represent four figures which we term “fa-
thers.”119 After that, we select the marks horizontally from all the “father”
figures, each row at a time, and set them up vertically. In that way we ac-
complish four figures which we term “mothers.” Next, from these eight fig-
ures, the fathers and mothers, we create four “sons.” From the four sons we
create two “witnesses” and from the two witnesses we create one “judge.”
The query then proceeds according to the nature of the witnesses and the
judge.
116
The spelling of the Egyptian names of the months is normalized; cf. PARKER 1950, 8.
117
: from Latin ordo -inis. $ : according to LSJ it means to “pick the kernel
out of fruit” (used in connection with pomegranates in Aristophanes’ frg. 610). An entry in
Hesychios’ lexicon might be interesting here:

¨ Ó (Hsch., 4239). The first
verb may conceivably be related to ,
(strike) and
(work wrought with
the hammer; LSJ, s. vv.). Considering that the traditional way of de-seeding a pomegranate is
to cut the fruit in halves and whack the back of the fruit firmly and repeatedly with a ladle or
other gadget to knock the arils out, there might be room here for a connection with the Greek
name of this divinatory art, #
¬, which also indicates an element of striking or ham-
mering (cf. n. 113, above). Similarly, the use of a dustboard or wax tablet, where one “beats
out” the marks of one’s future, may be compared to a threshing-floor, where one prepares the
grain for future days, beating it out with the help of a pole or flail. Cf. the use of the verb
in the text of Par. gr. 2491: @
}³
¬Õ
> =+ º#,
Ê¬
> @}#\ (DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 594).
118
The drawing of circles is unusual; in most treatises one is instructed to draw the marks
along 4 x 4 lines, usually from right to left (i.e. the same way Arabic is written).
119
The standard designation of the kinship pattern is: four mothers, four daughters, four
granddaughters (or nieces/nephews) and then the two witnesses and a judge. The paternal
variant is rare, but it does appear also in a small number of Arabic manuscripts (cf. VAN BINS-
BERGEN 1996a, 7, with n. 20). To make the kinship pattern patrilinear is thus not specifically a
Byzantine trait, though it does suit the conventions of Byzantine society.
219
C. <£> "$¨ <> <

%¨ <> #}¨ <> <\%¨
(f. 284v) <> $%¨ <>
%¨ <> <¨ <>
=
¨ <> ~^¨ <> "# $¨ <> @#$¨ <> <¨
<> }¨ <> ¾¨ <> $ %.
D.
<¢> }
^ ®_ , > }=> =.
#
# <
,
< \
,
"=\
\#.

"\ %$, }#¯ <= }

.
}, $ = .
<¢> }
^ = ¤ Ê<. <=> #, $. #
+ ~$ =
, #$= #

# , @#$ Î û} ¾
_ }#> @

> .

_ %$,
}#
·=% > }#=%.
^.
<¢> }
^ = ¤ , }=,
¤ (
cod.)
}= $%. # $ > Á
% _, #\
¾_#¬ #< }.
#$= @=,
·%. $ = #\
.
.
$% Ê_ .
(f. 285r) <¢> }

^ = ¤ . Ê_ + #>
. # "# ·_
,
> _> #$=
_ . __ ##, $ }##
.
#.
<¢> }
^ (
¯?) ®_ Ê<. #¤ <=. #
=$ _ <.
}$ " _
}.
|}$
.
<¢> }
^
"$ @
}
#
\% #¤
#$ ®_, ¾#$<

. # + }#} =
< %\
=
<

<#

. Ê< (< cod., cf. Cod. Par. 2424, f. 166r; TAN-
NERY 1920, 365) _# (# cod.) @<
¬ <
. Ê
%
_ .

<

_# }¬
}#_
.
<¢> }
¯ ®_ Ê<.
\_ ¾#$< =

,
\ }=^. #

$ Ê_ $
# @=$
.
#¬.
220
C. [The houses:]
On life; on pursuits; on siblings; on parents; (f. 284v) on children; on the sick;
on women; on death; on travel; on the empire; on hopes; on duress; on hap-
piness; on grief; on judgment.
D. [The planets:]
Saturn: its nature is cold and dry, bad, destructive, and deadly. It points to
former matters, things that took place before us, the deep and the dark; also
to the stinking and foul-smelling, to confining and thorny120 and acrid plants,
unjust and base people.
Jupiter: its nature is hot and moist, beneficent and good, righteous. It points
to pious people and ascetics; also to white stones and crystals, to churches
and well-formed beings and to all fruit which has a cover on its body; to
fragrant herbs, to an honorable and peaceable person and a law-observing121
and benevolent one.
Mars: its nature is hot and dry, destructive, burning, and ruinous. It points to
blazing furnaces and the shedding of blood, to war and distress and calami-
ties and murder; also to all red stones and to all herbs; to unjust and law-
breaking people and thieves. It is evil in every possible way.
(f. 285r)
Sun: its nature is hot and dry, but it is both beneficent and maleficent. It
points to kings and rulers and to gold and golden stones; also to the color of
gold and to beauty, to courage and love of riches.
Venus: its nature is cold and wet, beautiful and beneficent. It points to cheer-
fulness and music and eunuchs and women; also to sexual pleasures and
dice, and various colors.
Mercury: its nature fluctuates with the nature of the rest of the stars, except
that it tends to coldness and somewhat to dryness. It points to philosophers
and land-measurers, to mathematicians, tradesmen, sculptors, and historians;
also to quicksilver and to schooling122 and workshops; to wells and rivers
and winterbourne streams; to astronomers, diviners, teachers, poets, proph-
ets, and money-lovers.
120
The form <= seems to be a variant of the more common =, full of thorns.
Correspondent words which have survived into Modern Greek (<=, <=%
) attest that
the form in Gr 8 is not a scribal error.
121
The term , lawyer, is met with for instance in Doukas’ Historia Turco-
Byzantina 13, 5.
122
“Schooling” (for _# ) is my suggestion; in Gr 8, the word reads #$, i.e. bent or
crooked things.
221
E. (f. 285v)
F.
% $# ¤ _ ’ ©# _ ¤ _
! ’ ©# " % # ¤ _ $ $#
~$%
$#
~$%
%
$#
%
! ø
$
Õ
" $#
# ø <
$ ¤ _ ¤ _
% ~$% $# ¤ _ $#
! $# " ¤ _ # $# $ ~$% $#
G.
• £>
$ _ ~$% ~; _ ~>

• •
• •
#%,
<
\%,
@
\%
¯ <}¯.
• • }
^ = ¤ Ê<. @

#. #$

^ ~
, ¿ ~ M . @
<
% # ¿
>
, ¯, #
<\ , û
_¤ û
#
> ##
\.

> + < : –
222
Moon: its nature is cold and moist, though it also has a small share of
warmth; it is watchful and destructive. It points to sailors and soldiers, to
secretaries, captives, and gluttons.
E. (f. 285v)
[Table showing all possible geomantic figures, their relation to different
planets and whether they are good, bad, or intermediate:]
= , = <= , = \ (good, bad, intermediate)

~ ""Ñ% (sc. Ô ) the ascending node of the Moon; also called
“Dragon’s Head”
~
""Ñ% (sc. Ô ) the descending node of the Moon; also
called “Dragon’s Tail”
F. [Hemerological table:]
1st early 2nd late 3rd don’t use 4th all through 5th don’t use
th th th th
6 all through 7 early 8 don’t use 9 late 10th likewise
th th th th th
11 late 12 likewise 13 early 14 late 15 early
th th th th th
16 third hour 17 late 18 third hour 19 don’t use 20 don’t use
21st early 22nd likewise 23rd late 24th don’t use 25th late
th th th th th
26 late 27 don’t use 28 late 29 likewise 30 late
G. [Qualities of geomantic figures:]
• For whom does it have a resemblance and profit? It is profitable

• •
for teachers, secretaries and those who know how to write. Its
• •
• • nature is warm and moist. It is an ascendant (eastern) figure. Its
planet is Jupiter ( ), its house the Archer (M). The matter con-
cerns noble-men. It points to a long life, to a comely (person),
broad-bearded, neither stout nor thin but of moderate build. The
same applies to women.
223
How to create a geomantic chart

Text 66 begins at the bottom of a verso page with a zodiac wheel (section
A). There is no heading either there or on the next recto page, and Theodoros
has not spared any blank line for a later insertion. We are thus thrown right
into “the method of ramplion” in the description of how to prepare a geo-
mantic chart (section B). The chart is the constellation of geomantic figures
upon which the diviner’s interpretation is then supposed to be based. In some
manuscripts, the procedure is illustrated graphically, but not so in Gr 8.
Since the text is not easily understood without this kind of sketch, one may
speculate whether Theodoros had already seen the procedure in practice, and
thus understood what it was about anyway.
A chart is composed out of fifteen tetragrams, figures consisting of four
rows of single or pairs of dots. To create the first four figures, the diviner
strikes the ground with a sharp object to make sixteen lines of marks, four
lines for each tetragram.123 This should be done randomly, without counting
the marks. Next, the marks in each line are paired together: if only one mark
is left at the end, you put one dot for it in the geomantic figure; if they pair
evenly, you put two dots in the figure. The tetragrams can thus take any of
the following shapes:
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
To illustrate the rest of the procedure, let us suppose that the diviner is now
done striking the ground and has paired together all the marks, ending up,
e.g., with the following four figures:
1 2 3 4
• • • • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • •
Whereas the first four figures in a chart are randomized, the subsequent
eleven are based upon these four. The results can be seen in the chart on the
next page (it should be read from right to left, just as one would read Arabic
script):
123
Instead of sixteen lines, we have in Text 66 sixteen circles of marks, arranged in fours.
224
You get figures 5–8 by reading figures 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 together horizontally,

one row at a time: the upper row of dots are put vertically to create figure 5,
the next row becomes No. 6, and so forth. To create figures 9–12 you get
new combinations of even and odd numbers of dots by combining the dots of
figures 1 + 2, 3 + 4, 5 + 6, and 7 + 8. By combining figures 9 + 10 you create
No. 13, from 11 + 12 you get No. 14, and finally you create No. 15 by com-
bining figures 13 + 14. The finished chart is now made the basis for predic-
tions or elucidations related to the client’s query.124
The geomantic figures all have their specific names, qualities, and con-
nections to planets and other celestial phenomena. To this should be added
that the outcome of a query also depends on where in the chart the figures
end up. The fifteen possible positions in the chart are called houses, in re-
semblance with the so-called mundane houses of astrology. Each house rules
over a different aspect of life, as we can see in section C of Text 66. To
make an initiated assessment of a laid chart, the diviner had to bring together
all this information and relate it to the question at hand. It is reasonable to
assume that some kind of handbook would be needed for this second step in
the divinatory procedure, at least for novices, but in Gr 8 there is no such
124
Sometimes a sixteenth figure is created, by combining the dots of figure No. 1 with figure
No. 15. This is only used in cases of uncertain judgment, when the results of the chart are
ambiguous.
225
section included. Text 66 ends rather abruptly, with only one geomantic
figure out of sixteen presented at the end of the last verso page of U12. This
could mean that a “handbook” was in fact copied in full by Theodoros but
that one or two quires went missing afterwards. Another alternative would
be that Theodoros was only superficially interested in the art, and chose to
keep from the model manuscript just what happened to fit into the quire he
had at hand.
The astrological lore in Text 66

Astrology is, to a varying degree, present in most geomantic texts, and cer-
tainly in Text 66. Given that this represents a vast field of research in itself,
it is necessary to limit the presentation here so as to touch only upon phe-
nomena encountered in the manuscript text. The concepts are explained in
the same order as we find them in Text 66.
Section A, the zodiac: astrological calculations are based upon a concep-
tion of the universe where the earth is at the center and the other celestial
bodies (stars, planets, moon, etc.) seem to ambit around it in fixed orbits.
The most important orbit is the ecliptic of the sun, i.e. its apparent annual
path over the celestial sphere, as perceived by an observer on earth. The
zodiac is a representation of the astral constellations which the sun appears
to pass through on its route, counting from the vernal equinox and forward.
With the solar path divided into twelve equal parts, it became possible to tell
in what “sign” the sun was posited at a particular time of the year. The zo-
diacal circle on f. 283v shows the relation between the zodiacal signs, the
months, and the seasons.
Section B deals with the construction of the chart. This was discussed
above.
Section C is an enumeration of the geomantic houses. The astrological
concept of houses is actually twofold: one interpretation concerns which
zodiacal sign the planets are “at home” in, i.e. their own signs, the ones that
they rule. Each planet is thought to be the ruler of two signs, except for the
luminaries (Sun and Moon) which rule one sign each. This is connected to
the division of the signs into day- and night-signs. Signs from Leo to Capri-
corn were day-signs, Aquarius to Cancer were night-signs. The Sun ruled
over Leo and the Moon over Cancer. The rest of the planets were assigned as
rulers over one day-sign and one night-sign in the following way: Saturn –
Capricorn and Aquarius; Jupiter – Sagittarius and Pisces; Mars – Scorpio
and Aries; Venus – Libra and Taurus; Mercury – Virgo and Gemini.125 The
importance of knowing where the planets are “at home” stems from the idea
that their characteristic influence is increased when they pass through their
own zodiacal constellation. The second interpretation of “houses” is even
125
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 20.
226
more abstract: counting counter-clockwise from the Ascendant (the point of

the zodiac rising over the horizon), these mundane houses were visualised as
permanent and stationary sectors of the heavenly sphere, like a fixed com-
pass wheel set in relation to the rotation axis of the earth. Each of the usually
twelve segments of this wheel governed certain aspects of life. In accordance
with their movement across the sky, the zodiacal signs and planets were
thought to enter one house after another, thus entering and influencing new
aspects of human existence in each segment.126 The geomantic houses, fi-
nally, are modelled on the concept of mundane houses in astrology, i.e., the
first twelve positions in a geomantic chart govern the same areas of life as do
the segments of the astrological “heavenly wheel.” As the geomantic chart
includes three (or even four) positions further, these are then given a special
significance in the interpretation of the cast chart. They are the “witnesses”
(i.e., positions 13 and 14 in the chart on p. 225), the “judge” (position 15),
and the “judge’s judge,” in case a sixteenth figure is needed to elucidate the
reading (position 16; cf. n. 124, above).
Section D is a description of the planets and their elemental qualities
which are associated with everything from natural phenomena, botany, min-
erals, and events, to people—their disposition, interests and professions. To
an earth-bound observer most of the stars appear to always retain the same
position in relation to one another. These are called “fixed stars.” The celes-
tial bodies which are observed as moving in the sky are called “wandering
stars” or #Ñ

Ò . That is the reason why the ancients counted not
only Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn as planets but also the Moon
and the Sun. These seven “planets” all wandered through the heavens and
could thus be observed as they passed through the zodiac. The planets were
associated with certain qualities, temperaments, genders, day/night, et cetera.
These temperamental differences decided which planets were malefics or
benefics. As Ptolemy says about the four temperaments or fluids: “two of the
four humors are fertile and active, the hot and the moist (for all things are
brought together and increased by them), and two are destructive and pas-
sive, the dry and the cold, through which all things, again, are separated and
destroyed.”127 The influence from the planets is of paramount interest to as-
trological deliberations: in Ptolemy’s description of the fixed stars and their
respective influence it is obvious how each star is compared to, and is said to
operate like, this or that planet (this applies to fixed stars within the zodiacal
126
These mundane houses are sometimes called “Places,” in order to distinguish them from
the zodiacal houses (BARTON 1994, 98). I keep the term “house” here, since that is the term
we meet in Byzantine geomantic texts (¿, ).
127
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 5. 1. (transl. Robbins). An application of this view of the fluids was touched
upon in the discussion of Text 29, where the embryo was imagined to be concocted and
shaped by the heat and moisture in the womb, while too much dryness at the end of the shap-
ing process could be hazardous for the perfection of the eyes.
227
constellations as well as those south and north of the zodiac).128 Another

influential aspect is the four cardinal points of the horizon, also seen as the
main directions of the wind. Given the impact of the Sun during the day, the
eastern point (angle of the ascendant) is mainly dry, the southern point is hot,
the western point (occidental angle) is moist, while the northern point—also
called the lower heaven—is cold.129
Section E is a table of all geomantic figures, showing their planetary or
other celestial connections, and indicating the good/strong, bad/weak, or
intermediate/ambivalent impact of the figures on the query at hand. As we
can see in the table above, fourteen of the sixteen geomantic figures are con-
nected to a planet. Two figures, however, are instead accompanied by the
terms ""% and
""%, which refer to the more abstract con-
cept of nodes. The orbit of the moon is slightly tilted in relation to the eclip-
tic. This means that its path seems to cut the ecliptic in two nodes (intersect-
ing points).130 These points are important for predicting eclipses. For an
eclipse to appear, the Sun and Moon must be close to a node simultaneously.
Lunar eclipses are liable to appear at Full Moon, while solar eclipses (occul-
tations) appear at New Moon, in both cases given that there is a syzygy, i.e.,
provided that the Sun, Earth, and Moon stand in conjunction to each other—
that they “are in a line.” The ancient belief that eclipses were the result of a
dragon’s devouring of the sun or the moon is the reason why the nodes are
often called Dragon’s Head and Dragon’s Tail.131 In astrology the Dragon’s
Head is seen as positive and beneficial, while the Dragon’s Tail expresses
the opposite qualities. This tallies well with the characterisation in Text 66,
where the ascending node, ~ ""%, is described as <= (), and the
descending node, ~
""%, as (). The ascending node (-
""%, ) indicates the point where the moon’s orbit crosses to the north
of the ecliptic, and the descending node (
""%, ) the moon crossing
the ecliptic southwards. Our scribe has, for some reason, swapped the sym-
128
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 9.
129
Ptol. Tetr. 1. 11. In Chinese tradition, the cardinal points are at the heart of the geomantic
interpretation; one even talks about a “compass school” (BRASWELL-MEANS 1990, 133f.).
Braswell-Means contends that this stands in contrast to the Arabic-Western tradition with its
focus on time rather than on space. However, if we compare the use of Feng Shui to the
Malagasy geomantic tradition, the East Asian geomancy does not turn out to be so unique.
The geomantic procedure is in both cases employed to make spatial considerations, finding
the right geographic locale, erecting houses and designing interiors in a way that ensures that
one stay in balance with the elements or with the gods. On the spatial use of geomancy in
Madagascar, see VÉRIN & RAJAONARIMANANA 1991, 56–59. Time and space—the planets are
clearly the guardians of both. Similarly, even if Byzantine geomancy is used mainly to find
the right moment for acting in some way or other, the texts do refer to the compass directions:
we see this also at the end of Text 66, where the geomantic figure is described as an “Eastern”
figure (cf. p. 222f.).
130
Compare the more familiar phenomenon of solar nodes, the positions where the ecliptic
intersects the equator. The nodal points are then referred to as the vernal and the autumnal
equinoctial points.
131
BERRY 1961, 48.
228
bols written directly below the geomantic figure ( , ): these symbols

should probably change places.132
Section F concerns hemerology or the belief in auspicious and inauspi-
cious days. The hemerological table on f. 285v indicates when and on which
days of the month it is suitable to proceed with divination. Despite the im-
portant place of the Moon in magic and divination, the calendar forming the
basis of astrological texts is rarely based on lunar months. I will not go into
definitions and lengths of different lunar months here (synodic, anomalistic,
draconic, sidereal), but simply state that from early on it was the Egyptian
calendar, with twelve 30-day months and five intercalated days (Á
@<× Ò, resulting in a year of 365 days) that became standard in
Greek astronomy and thus in many divinatory texts.133 This may explain why
the picture of the zodiac in Text 66 is accompanied by Egyptian names of
the months, even though there were other possible ways of denominating the
months in Byzantium.134 The origin of the seven-day week—through Jewish
and Christian mediation in use even today—is linked to the Assyrian belief
that the seven planets ruled in turn over the hours of the day.135 The week-
days were accordingly dominated by the planets, i.e., the divinities that ruled
the very first hour of each day. Just as the planets had their qualities, being
benefic, malefic, or shifting, so also the hours and days in the week became
influenced by these.136 This was probably one source of the vast array of
beliefs in auspicious and inauspicious hours, days, and years, beliefs which
multiplied and eventually ended up in The Farmer’s Almanac, which has
132
I cannot say if this is a scribal mistake or if the use of symbols in the late Middle Ages was
different from modern usage. The same switch of the nodal symbols is present also in Par. gr.
2424, f. 163v and f. 189v; see TANNERY 1920, 359 and Pl. II (right before p. 357).
133
See, for example, Proklos, Hyp. astr. 3.56; Cf. FREETH 2006, 588.
134
An overview of different naming systems is given by Andrew Libadenos in connection to
his 14th-c. travel narrative Periegesis (LAMPSIDES 1975, 129).
135
The sequence was determined by the perceived distance of each planet—it was thought
that the slower the motion of a body over the celestial sphere the further away in space it must
be. Thus Saturn was viewed as the most distant planet, followed by Jupiter, Mars, the Sun,
Venus, Mercury, and the Moon. This is, evidently, the order followed also in the presentation
of planets in Text 66. That this sequence is not immediately seen in the sequence of week-
days, comes from the seven-hour sequence moving down through the weekdays: Saturn ruling
the 1st, 8th,15th and 22nd hour of the first day (hence “Saturday”), and subsequently the 5th,
12th, etc. of the second day; Jupiter ruling the 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23rd hour of the first day, the 6th
and 13th of the second, and so forth (cf. the presentation of days in Cod. Athous Dion. 282, ff.
28v–29v, edited in DELATTE 1927, 649–651). Emperor Constantine the Great officially intro-
duced this week in 321, thus replacing the former Egyptian-Greek week of ten days and the
Roman system of Nones, Ides and Kalends. Gilbert Dagron notes that few attempts were ever
made to Christianize the planetary names of the days (DAGRON 1990, 147). I would think that
the Byzantines had little need for that, since they followed the ecclesiastical tradition in nam-
ing the days (Sunday was Kyriake; thereupon followed Deutera, Trite, Tetarte, Pempte,
Paraskeue for “preparation day” and Sabbaton for Saturday). The lore of planetary connec-
tions to the weekdays apparently survived despite this neutralization in naming. A couple of
Byzantine Christianizations of planetary names are presented in HÜBNER 1983, 144–147.
136
For an account of lucky and unlucky hours, see e.g. CCAG 12: 198–199 (from Cod. Mus.
Hist. Mosq. 186).
229
seen new editions ever since.137 The Assyrian hemerologies are often seen as
precursors to the account of lucky and unlucky days which Hesiod included
in his Works and Days, and to the Orphic Ephemerides.138 Another trail,
however, brings us all the way back to Pharaonic Egypt, where calendars of
good and bad days have been transmitted in papyri at least from the Middle
Kingdom and onwards.139 In Egyptian papyri one can find precisely the divi-
sion of the day into three parts, each part either good or bad, that are extant
also in Byzantine hemerologies. The reason why a whole day or just part of
the day had a certain influence is not quite clear. According to Theodor
Hopfner it was connected to the activities of Egyptian gods on specific days
of the year: the feast day of Râ, the day of the fight between Hor and Seth, et
cetera.140 In Papyrus Sallier IV (BM 10184; ca. 1300 BCE), one can read that
the fifteenth day of the month Phaophi is good in the morning and mid-day
but bad in the afternoon: “Verlass deinen Aufenthaltsort nicht in der
Abendzeit, denn die Schlange Uatch, der Sohn des Gottes, geht aus um diese
Zeit und Unglück folgt ihr,” as Hopfner translates. On the other hand, the
fourth of the same month is put up as “bad, good, good,” but the prescrip-
tions are simply “do not leave your house at all on this day; a person born on
this day will die this day from severe illness.” That the moon, and perhaps
other planets, were considered influential may be concluded from the title of
some of the records: }%
\ }

\, lit and unlit days.
Hemerologies were consulted for guidance on
_$, “beginnings,” i.e.
when to undertake a certain activity (travel, marriage, business deals, medi-
cal treatment), and also for birth prognoses, to determine the character and
future of a child born on a certain day.141 Not least, they were crucial for
137
The same idea was even applied to millennia: Patriarch Gennadios (George Scholarios)
referred to his own time as “the millennium of the Moon” (
¤ ¡"× _#Ñ
Ô
[...]
_
Ó ÷ #ò). It followed upon the millennia of all the other planets and
revealed its Selenic nature through the brevity of human lives, the inconstancy of fate and the
political vicissitudes taking place just then (PETIT 1930, 3, 287).
138
On Hesiod, see WEST 1978, 348, with further references, and WEINSTOCK 1949, 57f. For
the Orphic fragments on day prognostics, see KERN 1922, 274–279.
139
Theodor Hopfner refers to the “Kahunpapyrus,” BM Kahun XVII,3 (HOPFNER 1921, 229);
cf. GRIFFITHS & PETRIE 1898, 62 with Pl. 25. Lana Troy gives an overview of the religious
contents and the cultural setting of some of these calendars; the Kahun papyrus, though, is
misnumbered in this article (TROY 1989).
140
HOPFNER 1921, 229.
141
Stefan Weinstock gives an example from Cod. Bodl. Cromwellianus 12, p. 402, where the
text gives advice on “medical treatment, horse-breeding, travel, marriage, slave-trade, hair-
and nail-cutting, clothing, agriculture, etc.,” in addition to information on the planetary ruler
of the day, and the horoscope for a boy or girl born on that day (WEINSTOCK 1949, 49 and 55).
Often enough, hemerologies are more specialized and focus on just one thing, like dream
interpretation, or the right time for blood-letting; cf. Erik Widstrand and Emanuel Svenberg,
who have discussed the Latin tradition of “Kollektivlunaria” and “Speziallunaria” (SVENBERG
1936 [in Swedish]; WIDSTRAND 1942; SVENBERG 1963). See also László Chardonnens’ sug-
gestions of how to denote different lunar prognostic genres (CHARDONNENS 2007, 393–398).
Chardonnens is mainly working with Latin and Anglo-Saxon texts, but his discussion is wor-
thy of note also for the Greek tradition.
230
divinatory practice.142 This mantic use of the hemerological table—the se-

lenodromion as it is called in Greek—is attested also in the manuscript tradi-
tion of the Sortes Astrampsychi.143 Here, too, either the whole day or a cer-
tain part of the day can be useful or not, just as we have it in section F of
Text 66. In the later redaction of the Sortes Astrampsychi a table of days is
included which is identical to the one in Text 66. It is preceded by these in-
structions:
Seek out the day and time on which the oracle works best. You should in-
quire on the following weekdays: the third—day of Ares, the fifth—day of
Zeus, the sabbath—day of Kronos, and the Lord’s day which is the day of the
Sun, and in no wise on other days. Use the third hour of the Lord’s day, the
sixth of the sabbath, the fifth hour of the fifth day and the third hour of the
third day, because on these days and times the answers given are more reli-
able. And before you consider the inquiry, consider if the time is right to de-
vote yourself to the oracle, as the thirteenth [day] is the most important […].
Further, you should consider the days of the Moon [or month], the way they
are set forth here.144
Whether a combination of these precepts with the ensuing table of allowed

and forbidden days and times of the Moon cycle (month) amounted to a rea-
sonable practice is debatable. It could be the result of interpolation, someone
adding an alternative way of deciding on the right time for oracles. Never-
theless, selenodromia were obviously assumed to be important, since they
are transmitted in numerous magical (and medical) manuscripts of late Byz-
antine and post-Byzantine date.
Section G, finally, describes one of the geomantic figures, the so-called
laetitia, joy. The information in section D, the description of the planets, and
in section E, the connection of each figure to a planet or celestial phenome-
non, has provided the background, and now we see how the laws of cosmic
sympathy are replicated in the qualities of the geomantic figure. We learn
about the celestial relations and general qualities (warm, moist, and ascen-
dant, in the case of laetitia). Furthermore, there is specific information on
what kinds of people are concerned, their professions and societal position,
and also the physiognomic appearance and character of such a person.
142
Cf. the title
[] {, in the papyrus BM gr. 121 (3rd c. CE), which clearly
spells out the use of the account of days in connection to divination, explaining when it is
propitious or not to seek out the hidden knowledge (PREISENDANZ 1974, II, 6f.; HOPFNER
1921, 228).
143
The “Lots of Astrampsychos” is an oracle book stemming from the 2nd or 3rd c. CE. The
book, which contained 92 questions and around ten possible answers to each of the questions,
became widely spread in both pagan and Christian versions, and is extant in 3rd–5th c. papyri
and in medieval manuscripts from the 13th–15th c.
144
STEWART 2001, 3; ecdosis altera, from Erlang. 89; Laur. 28, 14; Marc. 324 (my transla-
tion). For an introduction to and an English translation of the main text of the Sortes Astram-
psychi, see HANSEN 1991, 287–324.
231
Why is Text 66 incomplete?

After the description of just one geomantic figure (laetitia), the text in our
manuscript breaks off. This comes precisely at the end of the last verso page
of the quire (and also of the codicological unit; i.e. Q38 in U12). As I men-
tioned above, it is not evident whether or not Theodoros originally continued
presenting the rest of the geomantic figures and followed up with an inter-
pretational catalog, similarly to many other treatises. If he did give this addi-
tional information, it would have helped the reader assess the combination of
geomantic figures and houses, and connect this to the astrological lore of
cosmic sympathy, physiognomy, and much more. If Theodoros intentionally
broke off at f. 285v, one wonders to what use the text could have been put.
Was the model manuscript incomplete? Or did Theodoros only want a brief
orientation around the procedure of casting a chart? One small detail could
perhaps support the latter alternative, and that is the professional link of the
figure laetitia. Besides being one of the most positive geomantic figures, it is
also connected to “teachers, secretaries and those who know how to write.”
Theodoros as a copyist may have liked that association. All in all, though, I
would rather think that the text is incomplete by accident, and that one or
two quires are absent from the book.
A further look at the background of geomancy

Although geomantic texts are found in quite a number of late medieval
manuscripts, it is not a form of divination which has been given much atten-
tion in research, at least compared to its big sister, astrology. Therefore we
will make room for a brief discussion of the cultural background of this art.
Geomancy is one of the most widely spread divinatory techniques in the
world: from China and India in the east to Senegal and Morocco in the west,
and from Anglo-Saxon Europe to Botswana in Southern Africa.145 So where
did it come from? Most often the art is referred to as Arabic or Islamic, since
wherever Arabic and Islamic influence has reached, so has geomantic divi-
nation.146 As for the origin, it may be as complex to trace as in the case of
145
With the African slave trade it also proliferated in the West Indies and South America.
Furthermore, it is indeed still practiced in many parts of the world, for instance in parts of
Africa, on Madagascar, and in Chinese-speaking areas, where the art has merged with the
long-revered art of Feng Shui—nowadays popular also in the West (on geomancy in Africa,
see for example FAHD 1966 (covers Arabic divination at large); MAUPOIL 1988 (Benin);
JAULIN 1966, 147–163 (Sudan, Tchad, Benin); VAN BINSBERGEN 1996b (Botswana with sur-
rounding areas); VÉRIN & RAJAONARIMANANA 1991 (Madagascar); on Chinese geomancy, see
BRASWELL-MEANS 1990.
146
See for example JAULIN 1966, 13–16; FAHD 1966, 196–204; SAVAGE-SMITH & SMITH
1980, 1; Carra de Vaux is more guarded, only stating that the origin of Arab divination “reste
chez les Orienteaux, purement légendaire” (in: TANNERY 1920, 303). To call geomancy “Is-
lamic,” is perhaps a way to avoid falling into an ethnic pitfall, but even the religious label is
232
astrology, referred to above. Arabic manuscript evidence brings us back to

the tenth or ninth century CE, but this does not leave out the possibility of an
earlier existence of geomancy, whether on Persian, Egyptian, or other soil.
The necessary components for the art were present already in the astrological
lore of Ptolemy or Vettius Valens, and the fad for numerology and Sortes
literature (divination with the help of random choice from a handbook of
questions and answers) during the same era would seem to match up with the
procedure of geomancy. Armand and Louis Delatte suggest that the book
entitled

Y (sand striking), supposedly written by “Orpheus,” could
point to a Neopythagorean connection. The hypothesis would be that this
kind of sand divination was known and practiced in Greek-speaking areas
during late antiquity when “Pythagorean” and Hermetic mysticism were in
vogue, but later became reintroduced to Byzantium and Western Europe in
its Arabic form.147 A reference preserved in the prooemium by Niccolò of
Otranto to one geomantic text may possibly provide a lead here: Niccolò
says that he himself translated the text from a Latin model, but also added
what he had compiled from several Greek manuscripts. He ends his
prooemium with the words <\< +

}¤
\_
´
Î , Ú ~ #Ë
> ·_

^

<
Ê
%$ %,
according to Codex Scorialensis II 14.148 In Parisinus graecus 2419 (cop-
ied by George Meidiates in 1462) the reference is even more detailed: ¹
%
< ® # ~ > °^ ·

¯ "#

¤
\_ @
¯ <#
$
}.149 It is not unlikely that
this “Selmân” points at Salm n, the chief librarian of Caliph al-Ma’mn
(813–833). Salm n was the leader of the ‘Abb sid delegation to Constantin-
ople, sent to acquire Greek books from the Byzantine court of Emperor Leo
problematic. As a reminder, we may recall what it looked like at the Abbasid court in the late
8th c.: the chief astrologers were Theophilos of Edessa, a Greek from Syria (Nestorian Chris-
tian), Ab-Sahl ibn-Nawbakht, a Persian (convert from the Zoroastrian religion), M š ’all h,
a Jew from Basra (Jewish name Manasse), and Ab-Ma‘šar, a Persian (born in Balkh, now
Afghanistan); GUTAS 1998, 108f. These astrologers all played a part in Arabic/Islamic cultural
history, but it was their linguistic and cultural otherness that made them useful for the caliph-
ate. Likewise, for the origin as well as the spreading of geomancy, the blend of several cul-
tural traditions was probably more important than a precise ethnic or religious affiliation.
147
Cf. Suda, s.v. } Ô (Omicron 654); DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 578–580 and 585.
148
Cod. Scor. II 14, f. 47v (14th–15th c., according to Gregorio de Andrés’ catalog); the
manuscript is written by a single scribe, and readers’ notes from 1430 onwards imply a com-
position date at least prior to that (ANDRÉS 1967, 41f.). The prooemium is preserved also in
Cod. Flor. Laur. 86,14, f. 47v (15th c.).
149
Cod. Par. gr. 2419, f. 228r (DELATTE & DELATTE 1936, 597). The Latin treatise, which
Niccolò used, seems to have been the one produced by Hugh of Santalla. In her study of
Hugh’s text, Therèse Charmasson makes no mention of a person named Selmân or Salm n
(CHARMASSON 1980). This piece of information ought therefore to have come from the scat-
tered Greek treatises which Niccolò used for his compilation. Cf. Cod. Scor. II 14, f. 46r:
#
¤
^ #
$
\_, @ #
$ ’
^ @
º%Ç¯ #\
, _#$ ÷
> $,
_=¬ @
·##% "$"#% @#
¿ (sic) < Ê_.
233
the Armenian.150 These books were then translated into Arabic in Baghdad.
We know that astrological works were a top priority and in great demand at
the ‘Abb sid court,151 so perhaps geomancy was part of the parcel already at
that time. This suggestion would be interesting to follow up as a potential
missing link to an early use of geomancy, which then got a wider audience in
its Arabic version, only to end up being translated once again into Greek in
Otranto, in the early thirteenth century.152
Wim van Binsbergen has suggested a reevaluation of the origins of geo-
mancy. Given that most manuscripts—including the Arabic which are usu-
ally taken to be precursors to all Western European and Byzantine geomantic
texts—present a very heterogeneous collection of names of the geomantic
figures, names which apply to different semantic categories such as physical
appearance, emotions, colors, astronomic terms, et cetera, van Binsbergen
argues that the text in Parisinus graecus 2419 could actually represent an
earlier, uncorrupted stage of the geomantic art.153 In this manuscript the
names of the figures can all be interpreted in astrological terms, thus provid-
ing a comprehensive system of nomenclature.154 Although van Binsbergen’s
proposal certainly does not prove an ancient Greek or Byzantine origin of
the art of geomancy, it does encourage us to look beyond the apparent “fact”
of a tenth-century Arabic or Islamic invention of geomancy. Another intrigu-
ing idea offered by van Binsbergen is the possibility that the geomantic text
in Codex Harleianus 5596 could convey a form of “proto-geomancy.” He
150
WELLISCH 1986, 21; cf. al-Nadãm Fihrist, 7. 1 (DODGE 1970, 584).
151
GUTAS 1998, 108–110.
152
Niccolò of Otranto, a bilingual Greek from southern Italy, was the official translator in the
church union discussions in Constantinople in 1205–07, and again in 1214. Under the name of
Nectarius he became the abbot of the monastery of S. Niccolò di Casole 1220–35, and the
many Byzantine books which he brought back to Italy became part of the monastic library.
This monastery remained an important center for the diffusion of Greek culture in southern
Italy for centuries, until its destruction by the Turks in 1480 (SETTON 1959, 14f. and 32f.).
153
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 40–46.
154
The opposite case, that the author/scribe of Par. gr. 2419 could have tidied up the ar-
rangement secondarily, seems less plausible. Even though some of the Arabic names can be
shown to be corruptions of precisely those astronomic notions which present themselves in
the Paris manuscript, a translator from Arabic to Greek would hardly have recognized the
source concepts—the gap is too wide for that. Cf. also van Binsbergen’s examples of possible
textual distortions in the Arabic tradition due to orthographic similarities (VAN BINSBERGEN
1996a, 48). On the other hand, a Latin geomantic manuscript reminds us not to take too
lightly the ability of educated scribes to “ameliorate” a text: to the text of Br. Mus. Sloane
3487 (15th c.) the scribe added that he had reduced it to an astronomical basis, “Explicit ag-
gregatorium sive compilatorium geomancie editum per Ro. Scriptoris … quantum possibile
est ad astronomiam redacta” (cited from THORNDIKE 1934, vol. 4, 143). This Roland Scrip-
toris of Lisbon went about similarly with a chiromantic text, according to Thorndike: he
associated the parts of the hands with the planets, explained how to examine the hands of a
person to determine under what planet he or she was born, etc. (for details of manuscripts, see
THORNDIKE, loc. cit., n. 41). It may very well be that the case of Par. gr. 2419 is quite another
than the one of Roland “astrologizing” his texts—I am just stressing that further investigations
are needed to confirm van Binsbergen’s theory and eliminate other possibilities. On Roland
Scriptoris’ geomancy, see also CHARMASSON 1980, 177–193.
234
argues that the astrological orientation of geomancy emphasizes the seven

planets (and not the twelve zodiacal signs), thus only needing seven or eight
different configurations instead of sixteen: this is conveniently met in the
geomantic figures consisting of only three rows of dots, just as we have them
in the Harleianus manuscript. The less economic variant, with four rows of
dots per figure, must link two signs to each planet (just as in the table on f.
285v in Gr 8).155 Furthermore, a connection between the geomancy put for-
ward in Harleianus 5596 and the Pa Kua, the eight trigrams which form the
basis of ancient Chinese cosmology and divination, does not seem unrealis-
tic, though, as van Binsbergen states, this is highly hypothetical at present.156
Not a poor man’s astrology

As mentioned above, geomancy has been called a “poor man’s astrology.”157
This may be correct for more recent uses of the art, but in Byzantium and in
the medieval West it definitely stayed an advanced intellectual pursuit in the
upper strata of society, among sovereigns, doctors, and ecclesiastics. In these
areas it would be more suitable to call geomancy “the daughter of astrol-
ogy,” as do some of the medieval treatises.158 Thus, one should not be sur-
prised to find in some manuscripts the note that the geomantic text was cop-
ied from an exemplar belonging to Patriarch Gennadios, i.e. George
Scholarios.159 The interest in occult sciences was certainly not absent in ec-
clesiastical quarters. There are further examples: Codex Scorialensis Y III 18
(early 16th century) brings together texts on Greek alchemy and theological
treatises relating to the discussion of the “filioque.” Cardinal Bessarion, high
155
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 50–54. For the Greek text of Par. gr. 2419, see DELATTE & DE-
th v v
LATTE 1936, 591–658; the excerpt from Cod. Harl. 5596 (15 c.), ff. 3 –5 , was edited by
Armand Delatte (DELATTE 1927, 392–396). To render the planets a more important place than
the zodiacal signs was typical of Greco-Roman astrology in its earlier stages (BOUCHÉ-
LECLERCQ 1879, I, 225f.).
156
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 54. Representations of the Chinese trigrams are extant from at
least the 7th c. BCE, and the claim of contemporary Chinese geomancy is that the art descends
from the Qin dynasty, in the 3rd c. BCE (BRASWELL-MEANS 1990, 132f.). The Pa Kua are
associated with elements, seasons, times of day, compass directions, animals, etc., but not
with planets and astrological concepts, as far as I understand. To follow this East Asian geo-
mantic trail goes far beyond my scope here, but it is worth emphasizing that there has been a
considerable exchange of ideas between China and the West at many points in history,
through India and Persia and along the Silk Road. As for astrology, China has its own three-
thousand-year-long tradition of stargazing, but an import of Arabic astronomers/astrologers
has also taken place, for instance during the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368); STEELE 2000, 161.
Notwithstanding a possible connection of Eastern and Western geomantic trigrams and tetra-
grams, the astrological framework in the Arabic and Western geomantic texts is definitely
Ptolemaic, not Eastern. Chinese astrology is, for example, polar- and equator-oriented rather
than planetary and ecliptic (NEEDHAM 1974, 67).
157
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a, 13.
158
Cf. several of the incipits in CHARMASSON 1980, 295–303.
159
Par. gr. 2419, f. 241v:
\ =
^ º#$ ¦ #" >
> ""#$ $

_; CCAG 8:1, p. 53; the note is extant also in Vat. Pal. 312, f. 235 (15th–16th c.).
235
up in the Church hierarchies, is known to have had in his possession the

earliest of the surviving Greek alchemical manuscripts, Marcianus gr. 299.
The scribe Michael Apostoles, who also worked on commission from Bes-
sarion, copied at least two codices containing geomantic treatises (Cod.
Laur. 28, 22 and Cod. Laur. 86, 17). At the same time, geomancy does come
forth as a somewhat “foreign” element in fifteenth-century Byzantium, at
least if we are to judge from John Kananos’ account of the siege of Constan-
tinople in 1422. After having ravaged the surrounding areas, Sultan Murad II
was about to capture the city, but the Ottoman “patriarch” Mersaïtes (Amãr-
seyyãd) told Murad to await his instructions on the right time for assaulting
the walls. When the troops had gathered, this Mersaïtes “went into his tent
[...] and began to peruse the books of Muhammad and perform the ramplia,
putting on an act as he did this, in order to deceive the Turks into revering
and honoring him as a prophet.”160 Mersaïtes promised them an easy victory
if they listened to his advice, and said that if the sultan and his troops ad-
vanced at the right moment, then the city walls would collapse automatically
and they would unhindered seize the city. Eventually these schemes, which
Mersaïtes had substantiated through oracles obtained from the “books of
Muhammad” and “the ramplia,” came to nothing, since, according to John
Kananos’ report, the Theotokos miraculously intervened and gave the vic-
tory to the Byzantines.
Looking at this episode, it is striking that Kananos seems to have taken
his readers’ familiarity with “
#” for granted: he sees no need to
explain what was going on in Mersaïtes’ tent. Furthermore, geomantic divi-
nation is apparently something that a fifteenth-century imam could be ex-
pected to resort to.161 Would it matter here that Mersaïtes is depicted as a
Persian, speaking and singing hymns in “Persian dialect”? Further on in
Kananos’ text Mersaïtes is reported to have said that wise men from Persia
had calculated the right time (for capturing Constantinople) “through the
power of the stars and the skills of astronomers.”162 It is not clear whether
this statement still points to geomancy or to astrology in a wider sense. John
Kananos emphasizes that the Theotokos could counteract the astrologers’
prediction because her power did not come from earth ( > <¯) or from
people but from heaven and from an invisible force. To mention earth as a
less powerful element could possibly be a hint at the geomancy used, but the
160
John Kananos, De Constantinopoli oppugnata 248–252.
161
One must, however, bear in mind that this particular “patriarch” is depicted as depraved;
John Kananos describes him as well-born, < ¬, a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, but
also as a callous person, ambitious, haughty, and violent, even as having abducted and raped a
daughter of Murad II (ibid. 199–209).
162
Ibid., 530–535: `# < < °

Ñ_
Ô%, ©
×#
@×
’ _#%
=¯, Ú Á }
¯ £ Ó
> >
^ °%Ñ =
@®}}×
Ô
, ©

>

> ¯
¤ Ò
Ô

¯ ×# ’ ×

=¯. ##
^
< Ò=

¤
Ô

Ò%
¤
Ò_

×%.
236
whole argument of Kananos is that the Persian prophecy was valid and could
be reverted only through the power of God. There is no patent disapproval in
the text concerning the use of either astrology or geomancy; Mersaïtes’ self-
ish and cruel scheming and his blasphemic utterances were probably more
serious offenses in the eyes of John Kananos (“Blind Romans, where is your
God now? Where is your Christ? Where are the saints who should help
you?”).163
All things considered, the reference to geomancy in John Kananos’ narra-
tive must not be given too much weight in a discussion of geomantic divina-
tion. It gives one person’s perspective, and that in a text which is supposed
to denigrate the enemy and eulogize the Byzantine victory as supported by
the Virgin. Nevertheless, it is a contemporary observation and therefore in-
teresting for the investigation of late and post-Palaiologan geomantic texts.
To get a more solid comprehension of the place of geomancy in Byzantine
culture one would certainly need to expand the investigation to a larger
number of texts. If someone were to undertake that chore, my advice would
be to take into account also the location of these texts in the books where
they are found. With a firm grip on the codicological structure and the con-
text of books, their place of origin, scribes, owners and readers, there is a
good chance to learn more about the cultural background and importance of
a phenomenon like geomancy. To link that kind of study to an inquiry into
the Arabic and possibly Persian geomantic traditions would moreover give
us the broader perspective, attainable through interdisciplinary collaboration.
163
Ibid., 271ff.
237
How to address the Pope (and a friend): Text 81

To learn a foreign language was no simple undertaking during the Middle
Ages. The aids we take for granted, like lexica and grammars, were scarce.164
Thus, in addition to more or less ample word lists, the key strategy was to
use well-known texts and supply them with a word-for-word translation.
More often than not psalms were used for this purpose, and this is what we
find in Gr 8. One of the codicological units, U15, is devoted almost entirely
to bilingual texts, the Latin version in a neat humanist hand and the Greek
translation above each line a little more idiosyncratic in style—not that the
Greek is carelessly written, but rather swiftly, the letters either stretched out
or crammed together, with the aim of getting each word in the right place in
relation to the Latin.
In addition to the Psalms and liturgical items (Ave Maria, Pater Noster,
Credo), there is another bilingual text: a rudimentary letter manual or titulary
collection, instructions on how to address public officials of various kinds as
well as private persons. This reflects letter-writing not as a literary genre, but
as a necessary aid in daily life.165 Research on Hellenistic and Byzantine
letter manuals has concentrated mainly on the more systematic ones which
became associated with names like Demetrios of Phaleron, Libanios, and
Proklos.166 These were surveys of epistolary types with exemplary letters of
different kinds attached. Extant in manuscripts from the tenth century and
onwards, they saw their widest dissemination in the late Palaiologan and
early Ottoman periods.167 That this tradition of letter manuals continued also
in the post-Byzantine era is evident from an analogous seventeenth-century
164
The first Greek grammar to appear in print was Constantine Lascaris’ Græcæ Institutiones,
in 1476; three others, by Manuel Chrysoloras, Demetrios Chalkokandyles and Theodore
Gazes, followed suite in the next twenty years (STEVENS 1950, 242). Being entirely in Greek,
Lascaris’ book was ill suited for beginners, who must have needed initial instruction from a
Greek teacher. We may note, though, that just at the end of his book there is a Latin version of
the Lord’s prayer with an interlinear Greek translation: this prayer is presented among the
bilingual texts in Gr 8 as well. Lascaris includes among his reading selections the “Psalmus
quinquagesimus, cui principium, Miserere mei domine”; this, too, is part of the Greek-Latin
material in Gr 8. I am not suggesting a direct link between Lascaris’ work and the texts in
Gr 8, but rather pointing out the standard procedure and the conventional choice of texts,
known to all, and therefore practical in language learning. Several early Greek printers pro-
duced “student versions” of texts, presenting the Greek text together with interlinear Latin.
Paul Botley shows how fables, biblical, and liturgical texts, seem to have been the preferred
choice for these language primary readers (BOTLEY 2002).
165
In his introduction of Byzantine elementary schooling, Herbert Hunger mentions that letter
openings are found among the practice texts in manuscripts: “Sehr häufig übte man (fiktive)
Briefanfänge und Teile von Urkundentexten” (HUNGER 1989, 78). This pedagogical pattern
may have influenced our scribe Theodoros to add the letter headings to his language exer-
cises. It is fairly obvious, though, that the texts in Gr 8 are in no way elementary: the end user
of these pages was an adult rather than a school boy.
166
Ps.-Demetrios, !
" "
"
and Ps.-Libanios/Ps.-Proklos, ("
" {
" )*.
See, for example, RABE 1909; BRINKMANN 1909; SYKUTRIS 1928/29.
167
Cf. the introduction to Weichert’s edition (1910).
238
creation by Theophilos Korydalleus (ca. 1574–1646), %+ "

"
!, a work that was reprinted several times.168
Less attention has been given to the address and titulary books, which
were more of an auxiliary for professional scribes and civil servants; only
rarely have they been made accessible through an edition. In 1913, Giannino
Ferrari edited some formulary texts taken from Vaticanus graecus 867, ff.
30–43. Among a large number of model documents concerning legal mat-
ters, there is one section of particular interest for us: §§ 21–36 present exam-
ples of how to address different dignitaries, sometimes with an outline on
how to treat this or that question, sometimes also with a letter-ending for-
mula.169 The manuscript is dated to 1258–59, but a couple of details could
point to an earlier date for the formulary, or at least for the letters serving as
its models. In the address “from ruler to ruler” (§ 29), for example, the word-
ing of the letter is: ·_
()¨ < \

(\). In
the address > ^ (§ 31), the name Komnenos is mentioned again. As
the Komnenian dynasty held sway only until 1185, these entries ought not
have been current during the Lascarid rule in the thirteenth century, at least
not in Nicaea. The rulers of Trebizond, of whom many were related to the
Komnenoi of Constantinople, most often referred to themselves with the
phrase Megas Komnenos. Ferrari suggested that it is used as an honorific
title, and this may well be the case.170 On the other hand, the names may
simply be details remaining from real letters, which the scribe chose to use
as models for his formulary.
Another text of this kind, the so-called Ekthesis Nea, saw a fairly wide
dissemination: Jean Darrouzès presents some twenty-five manuscripts,
mainly from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.171 The collection, which
was originally compiled in 1386, was—as Darrouzès shows—soon thereafter
subject to transpositions, additions, and other changes. Textual instability
would come naturally with a text of this kind, but it is also a sign of its popu-
larity and usefulness. A dilemma for the textual editor, this becomes part of
its charm for the cultural historian: at least potentially, each text has the
prospect of presenting a reflection of a certain time, of a historical, geo-
graphical, or social setting. In a couple of manuscripts there was an addition
made in the form of an address to a Ê®¬}, a bishop elect; in one a pit-
168
The %+ "
" ! was first published in London 1625 by Nicodemus Metaxas
(printer William Stansby); cf. ROBERTS 1967, 16f. and 40f. On a text in Cod. Vat. Barb. gr.
71.3 possibly being the model for Korydalleus’ work, see RABE 1909, 288.
169
FERRARI 1913, 57–62.
170
FERRARI 1913, 126. One example of how the expression ~ > "# ^ can point to
someone outside of the Komnenian family is the reference to Emperor Andronikos Gidos in
John Lazaropoulos’ Synopsis (BHG 612–613); see the commentary on Lazaropoulos’ Synop-
sis line 1206, ROSENQVIST 1996, 439; MACRIDES 1979.
171
The Ekthesis Nea has seen other editions, prior to Darrouzès’, though based on just one or
a few manuscripts. One of these editions is accessible in PG 107 398–418; cf. DARROUZÈS
1969, 5, n. 2.
239
takion was directed to the voivode Stefan and his wife Maria; in another
manuscript a model letter from Niccolò Gattilusio to the emperor Alexios of
Trebizond was recorded (and also criticized in a marginal note, because Gat-
tilusio actually died before Alexios IV began his reign, and “how could the
redactor be so ignorant, so as not to know this”).172
What information does a text like Ekthesis Nea provide? We can, for ex-
ample, learn “how the Patriarch of Constantinople nowadays writes to the
Pope” and to other ecclesiastical and political officials (`= \, ©%
^ <} ~ %

# %
_
Î ø,
#

_ _ , ¤

#$
,

_ Ç=). From the wording ¨" – © , in
the headline cited, it appears that the compiler reworked an earlier formu-
lary; thus there is not only textual instability after 1386, but the compilation
Ekthesis Nea is itself an adjusted version. The element of practical useful-
ness of these collections is imperative: since titulary etiquette and bureau-
cratic order changed in the course of time, the chancery manuals had to be
up to date. This ongoing process of adaptation is clear from other, even more
modified versions of the work than the ones Darrouzès used for his edition.
Shortened or expanded, with new offices and names added, they sometimes
give the impression of not being chancery manuals anymore, but an aid for
anyone who would need to contact authorities, teachers, or even friends and
family.173 Darrouzès refers to a couple of such recensions nouvelles, more or
less remote, or even independent, versions of address collections, in Vati-
canus 573 and Sinaiticus 1609.174 Hugo Rabe mentioned yet a few manu-
scripts, like Oxford Bodleian misc. 242, Neapolitanus Borb. III.B.27, and
Escorialensis ª.IV.1.175 The latter manuscript is of particular interest to us,
172
See DARROUZÈS 1969, § 79, app. crit. Alexios IV of Trebizond was actually co-emperor
(
) already in 1395, so the letter may still be a “credible” model even though he did
not become sole emperor until 1417.
173
The basic form of the Ekthesis Nea is transmitted in prints from the 18th c. onwards under
the name of
"
="
(RABE 1908, 286). The third part of this epistolary starts with:

\ =
$
#%

> #
%¨ ©% <} ~ # %

_,
#. The reference to Kodinos is extant in a couple of manuscripts as well, one of
them in Darmarios’ hand. Jean Verpeaux accused Darmarios of having planted this informa-
tion, perhaps to make it sell better with an author’s name attached (VERPEAUX 1976, 63–65).
Though not out of character for Darmarios, in this instance it is more likely that he actually
used a model manuscript related to the Hierosolymitanus Metochion S. Sepulcri 46, where
Ekthesis Nea precedes some episcopal acts and the Treatise of Dignities and Offices by
Pseudo-Kodinos; Darmarios may have seen the three works as one combined text. Cf. DAR-
ROUZÈS 1969, 6.
174
Darrouzès explicitly shows how the redactor of Vat. gr. 573 rearranged the material of
Ekthesis Nea because it had become anachronistic and not attuned to the reality of his own
era, the early 15th c. (1969, 23f.). Conversely, this implies that there were scribes who chose
not to adjust the material, whether because of mere mechanical copying or because they pre-
ferred to freeze a moment in time when the empire still stood intact, when the administration
had not yet been handed over to another ruler.
175
RABE 1909, 285f.
240
since the formulas in that text differ only slightly from the ones in Gr 8,
apart from the fact that no Latin version was included there. Variant readings
from Escorialensis ª.IV.1 (siglum E) are indicated in the critical apparatus
to Text 81, and a brief discussion of the manuscript and its relation to Gr 8 is
given in the “Addendum,” at the end of this chapter.
An intriguing aspect of formularies like these is that, besides giving in-
formation on the usage of titles and courtesy phrases at a certain time, they
occasionally indicate the persons for whom or the circumstances in which
the formulas were—or could have been—used. By combining names, initials
of names, places or certain offices as far as these have left traces in the par-
ticular text or copy, this may also help us figure out a date for the composi-
tion of the manual, or of a specific version of it.176 This is what we will ven-
ture to do with Text 81. The listing begins with religious dignitaries, ranging
from pope to monk. Subsequently civil offices follow, from king to learned
nobles, and at the end a few entries are given on how to greet a friend. In
some cases the formula includes a name, in others just an initial, and in yet
others there are no clues whatsoever. Likewise, not all of the persons men-
tioned have made an imprint on posterity: we will never know who the “be-
loved son Antonius” is, unless we find out who actually compiled the formu-
lary. I have chosen to present Text 81 the way it is written in the manuscript:
the Greek above the Latin text. Subsequently, I will discuss the information
it contains and its implications for our assessment of the text in relation to
Gr 8 as a whole book.
176
For the use of existing persons or correspondences in designing a guide to letter-writing,
cf. ÖBERG 1997, 12–19.
241
Text 81 (ff. 320r–323r)
1
Î ø
Papae

Î *<%

´ %

´ =\
Õ
Î ø
Sanctissimo ac beatissimo domino nostro papae
5 #Õ
Cardinali

Î %

´ @ ²
Î

Õ $´
$
#
¯ *<$
Reverendissimo in Christo patri et domino domino B. tituli sanctae
"$ @´ #Õ =\
Õ @Î @_%

´ ý @

´
10 Sabinae episcopo cardinali domino meo

Î %

´ @ ²
Î

Õ $´ . @´
Reverendissimo in Christo patri et domino domino B. episcopo
#$´ #Î =\
Õ @Î @

´
Cardinali Thusculano domino meo singulari
15 @´
Episcopo

Î $´ @ ²
Î

Õ $´ £$ @´
Reverendo in Christo patri et domino domino P. papiensi episcopo
=\
Õ @Î @

´
20 domino meo singulari
<\´
Abbati

Î $´ @ ²
Î
$´ |=$´ =<\´
¯ À<$ °$
Reverendo in Christo patri domino Athanasio abbati Sanctae Mariae
25
£
\%

%

´
de Patiro patri colendissimo
1
Î ø]
#> #
¯ *<$ "#$
Ã< #> }\% E
3 supra =\
Õ add.
Õ supra lin. U
Î] E 5 #Õ deest E
7
$
#]
\
# E 9 ý] E 17 $´] %

´ E 23 $´] @ %

´ E
25 £
\% deest E

%

´ quasi titulum textus sequentis transposuit E
242
Á ^

Sacerdoti canonico

Î #"

´ $´
$´ Î
¯ À<$ °$
¯ ° $
30 Venerabili viro domino Demetrio canonico Sanctae Mariae °aioris

$´
patri venerando
_Î
Monacho
35
Î ~$´ $´ °´
%
^ À<$ $
@
Î $´
Religioso viro domino Marco ordinis Sancti Benedicti in Monte

$%
Cassino patri observando
"#
40 Regi

³ Á "#³ <#

|<% ¡
\ #$
¡¯
Sacrae regiae Maiestati Aragonum utriusque Siciliae et cetera
$
Principi
45
Î }

´ =\
Õ $´
$<
¡¯ =\
Õ
Illustrissimo domino domino M. Tarenti principi et cetera, domino
@Î @

´
meo singulari
$
50 Duci

Î }

´ =\
Õ $´ "$
¡¯ =\
Õ
Illustrissimo domino domino G. Sabaudiae duci et cetera domino
@Î @

´
meo singulari
27 Á ^ post #"

´ E 29 °$ deest E 33 ante _Î scripsit

Î ~$´ sed delevit E 35 $´ ] $ 39 supra "# scripsit $<
sed delevit U 40 supra Regi scripsit Principi sed delevit U 41 <#

] <#

Õ E
243
55 _$%
Marchioni

Î } Ê®#Î =\
Õ $´ µ %\##´ _$%
\ =\
Õ
Illustri et excelso domino domino Leonello marchioni Estensi domino
@Î @

´
60 meo singulari

Comiti

Î Ê®#%

´ =\
Õ $´ ¶%
=\
Õ @Î
Excellentissimo domino domino H. Fundorum comiti domino meo
65 @

´
singulari

"
Militi et barono

Î <# } $´
@ µ...

70 Magnifico et excellenti domino Sansoneto de Lusi... militi
#´
Jurisconsulto

Î "#\
´ @

´ #´ $´ |
$´
@ £
"$
Spectabili et eximio legum doctori domino Antonio de Padua
75 @
¬
rtium doctori

Î @

´
_
¯ #´ $´
@ £ $
õximio artium et medicinae doctori domino Matheo Perusino
}Î #<$´

80 Homini docto et eloquenti

Î }%

´ #<%

´ $´
Doctissimo et eloquentissimo viro domino Joanni Aurispae
57 Ê®#Î] Ê®#

´ E =\
Õ deest E µ %\##´ _$%
\] µ %¬#´
__$% (sic)
\ E 61
] Õ E 63 ¶%]
E
=\
Õ] Õ
=\
Õ E 67 "] " E 69 µ...] µ$ E

ante $´
transposuit E 77 £ $] £ $ E 79 }Î #<$´ quasi partem textus
prioris transposuit E 81 #<%

´] <%

% E
244
< #$´

Nobili et diviti
85
Î <# < $´ £#´ "\##´
Magnifico et nobili viro domino Paulo Sabello

Î }%

´ }#=%

´ $´ £\
´ }$#´ $
´
Prudentissimo et humanissimo viro domino Petro amico singulari

Î }#=%

´

´ $´ |
%$´ }$#´ =

´
90 Perhumano et eruditissimo viro domino Antonio amico carissimo

Î
%

´ }%

´ $´
Modestissimo et prudentissimo viro domino

Î %

´ <

´ $´
Strenuo et generoso viro domino
95
Î < #

´ $´
Nobili et praeclaro viro domino

Î =

´ #}Î $´
Carissimo fratri domino

Î Ð<\´ ÁÎ |
%$´
100 Carissimo filio Antonio

Î <
Î = Î ÁÎ
Dilecto et caro filio
Î _¬ @ $

Honesto et bono viro
105
Î < @
$´ $´
Nobili et honorato viro domino
83 #$´] #
´ E 85 £#´ "\##´] #´ "\#´ E 87 $
´] $
´
Î E
89

´]

´ E 97 #}Î] E 99 ex <
Î in Ð<\´
correxit U ÁÎ |
%$´] = Î ÁÎ $´ E 101 lin. deest E 103 _¬]
_¬ U lin. deest E 105 post lin. 105 in E sequitur initium novae epistulae, vide p. 262.
245
Ecclesiastical offices
The office of cardinal is given two entries in our formulary, both of which
undoubtedly point to Cardinal Bessarion of Trebizond (1403–1472). Bes-
sarion, bishop of Nicaea at the time, played a leading role as proponent of a
church union at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. After the Council, Pope
Eugenius IV wanted him to continue as a mediator between the Byzantine
and the Roman churches, and to that end ordained him cardinal in December
1439. Bessarion was appointed Episcopus Cardinalis Sabinensis by Pope
Nicholas V, in March 1449, and a few weeks later was transferred to the
diocese of Tusculum. In the early fifteenth century, Enrico Minutolo was the
bishop of the corresponding sees,177 and according to Ferdinando Ughelli,
there was yet another fifteenth-century bishop who held the same two chairs:
Latino Orsini.178 Nevertheless, in Text 81 the initial “B.” decides the issue to
Bessarion’s advantage. Bessarion’s distinction in the circle of humanist
scholars at Mistra in the 1430s and in Italy later on, his involvement in the
Church Council, and his undisputed importance for supporting Greek immi-
grant intellectuals, would furthermore make him the most probable cardinal
to appear in a Latin-Greek titulary collection.
The bishop of Pavia, whose name starts with the letter “P,” may refer to
Petrus Grassius de Castro Novo, who held the episcopal chair from 1402
until his death in 1426. The wording of our text can be compared to his epi-
taphium in the sacellum of Saint Martha, which begins in the following way:
Hic iacet Reverend. in Christo Pater, & Dominus D. Petrus de Grassis, de

Castro Novo, Dei & Apostolicae Sedis gratia Episcopus Papiensis, et Comes,
qui obiit anno Domini…179
Another possibility would be his successor, Francesco Pizolpasso (bishop of

Pavia 1427–1435), who is better known as the archbishop of Milan.180 The
normal rendering of the title would be with a person’s first name, in this case
“Dominus F.” Could the scribe writing “P” have been influenced by the sub-
sequent P in Papiensis, a slip further facilitated by the fact that Francesco’s
second name started with P? Or could the phi in a Greek model manuscript
177
Cardinal Enrico Minutolo held the see of Tusculum/Frascati 1403–1409 and the see of
Sabina 1409–1417 (GAMS 1873, xx and xiv).
178
Cf. UGHELLI 1644, 208 and 210. Ughelli’s years of nomination for Latino Orsini are 1468
and 1472 (in Gams, the latter date is 1473). Eubel, on the other hand, does not bear out Latino
Orsini’s presence as Bishop of Sabina, mentioning only Tusculum (EUBEL 1914, 11). Giorda-
no Orsini—member of the same family of Roman nobles—did hold the Sabinian chair prior
to Bessarion (1431–1439), but he was never bishop of Tusculum. What seems clear is that in
1465 Latino Orsini was nominated bishop of the suburbicarian diocese of Albano, in 1468 he
became bishop of Tusculum, and in 1472 archbishop of Taranto (GAMS 1873, 856).
179
Cf. UGHELLI 1644, 37*. In Ughelli’s text a comma was put in the wrong place: “de Castro
Novo Dei, & Apostolicae Sedis.”
180
See GAMS 1886, 801 (Piccopasio, bishop of Pavia) and 796 (Picolpasso, bishop of Milan).
246
(“$´ ¶. £$ @´”) have become reproduced as a “P.” in a Latin

apograph? Palaeographic hypotheses set aside, what certainly points to the
advantage of Pizolpasso (compared to his predecessor Petrus) is that he
would have been much more renowned among the Greek émigrés than his
predecessor Petrus. Pizolpasso took part in the Council of Basel from 1432
to 1439, and belonged to the circle of humanists who devoted themselves to
the study of Latin and Greek literature. In a letter to Nicholas of Cusa, Pizol-
passo writes about the Council of Basel, hoping that their work might bring
permanent unity and peace in the church.181 Pizolpasso was the patron of Pier
Candido Decembrio, who translated Plato’s Republic and took part in the
ongoing discussion on Plato and Aristotle, polemicizing against Leonardo
Bruni, among others.182 Among Pizolpasso’s correspondents are several of
the leading cultural personalities during the 1430s–40s: Giovanni Aurispa—
dealer in Byzantine manuscripts, Leonardo Bruni and Ambrogio Traver-
sari—both leading Italian Hellenists, Enea Silvio Piccolomini—later to be-
come Pope Pius II, Lorenzo Valla—skilled latinist and translator of Greek
texts, Bessarion—bibliophile and patron of many Byzantine émigré scholars,
and Humphrey, duke of Gloucester—he, too, a benefactor of several Italian
humanists.183
The Greek monastery of Sancta Maria del Patire (or Patirion), situated
close to the city of Rossano in Calabria, was founded in the early twelfth
century through the efforts of Saint Bartholomew of Simeri and Norman
donations.184 The abbot mentioned in Text 81 would point to Athanasios
Chalkeopylos, who was archimandrite of Patirion 1448–1457.185 Originally
from Constantinople, he entered the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos
and came to Italy probably accompanying his superior, Dorotheos of Va-
topedi, who was to take part in the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439.186
181
BOND 1996, 145. Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) was sent to Constantinople as the pope’s
ambassador in 1437 to negotiate the reunification of the churches. His friendship with Pizol-
passo “found nourishment in their mutual preoccupation with theological and philosophical
problems, but most of all, so it seems, in their love of books” (BIECHLER 1975, 16).
182
GARNSEY 2007, 44f.
183
On Pizolpasso’s time in Pavia, Basel and Milan and his contact with the humanist move-
ment, see PAREDI 1961, 25–65. Portions of Pizolpasso’s correspondence are found in PAREDI
1961, 193–237; FUBINI 1966, 354–370; and SOTTILI 1966, 56–63.
184
The “del Patire” (del padre,
^
) derives from the founder, Bartholomew, “father”
of the monastery (cf. BHG 235). The “Norman” who promoted the monastery was Christo-
doulos, an admiral of Greek descent who held a distinguished position at the Norman court of
Sicily (he was also conferred the honorary title of protonobelissimos by Emperor Alexios I).
Cf. BATIFFOL 1891, 4f.; VON FALKENHAUSEN 1985.
185
In BATIFFOL 1891, 7, the author mentions an icon, now belonging to the Church of S.
Pietro in Corigliano, which was commissioned by Athanasios. On the lower part of the frame
it has the following inscription: |= ¶#$ ²# # _$

³

^ ^ %
$
_\% _.
186
According to Joseph Gill, the monk Athanasios was ordered by the Emperor to collect
appropriate codices at Athos and bring them back to the Council as support for the Greek
position in theological controversies (GILL 1959, 76).
247
Athanasios made the acquaintance of Bessarion and is mentioned in the lat-

ter’s correspondence with Michael Apostoles. That he copied manuscripts on
behalf of Bessarion is attested, likewise his activity as a translator of Greek
texts into Latin.187 It was Bessarion who appointed Chalkeopylos archiman-
drite of Patirion. In 1458 Pope Pius II made him abbot of the Cistercian
monastery of S. Maria dell’ Arco in Syracuse, and a few years later he be-
came bishop of Gerace (1461–1497), the last Greek to hold that office.
Athanasios Chalkeopylos died in 1497.188
The two subsequent entries in Text 81, concerning a priest and a monk,
both mention persons by name. The most famous church with the epithet
“Sancta Maria Maior” is the Santa Maria Maggiore at the Piazza dell’ Esqui-
lino in Rome. The sacerdotal records of this church may possibly give us
further information on pater Demetrius, but I have not pressed the issue any
further. Neither have I found sources which could help me to identify Mar-
cus, monk at the monastery of Montecassino. Cassino is situated midways
between Rome and Naples, and was once on the border between Latin and
Greek Italy. Though officially a Benedictine foundation, the monastery was
at times also associated with Greek monasticism. The Byzantine emperor
was the protector of the monastery from the late ninth century onwards. In
the tenth century, Neilos of Rossano lived in a metochion of Montecassino
together with a large number of disciples.189 There were also Benedictine
monks from Montecassino who decided to migrate to Mount Athos and
Mount Sinai. That Montecassino became the melting-pot for different cul-
tural influxes can be seen in its art, its architectural decoration, and its scribal
production. For example, the influence of Byzantine artistry can be traced in
the illuminated manuscripts deriving from the Montecassino scriptorium.190
187
On Chalkeopylos’ scribal activity, cf. Repertorium II, 7 with further literature. The Cod.
Ravenn. Bibl. Class. 210, which he probably copied for Bessarion, contains Aristotle’s Nico-
machean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, and some poems from the Planudean Anthology. His
translations of two homilies of Basil the Great and of Lucian’s De saltatione are extant (the
latter work, in Cod. Par. gr. 3013, is dedicated to Antonello Petrucci, secretary of King Ferdi-
nand of Sicily; in Repertorium II, 7 it is pointed out that the scribe of the Paris manuscript is
not Athanasios but John Chalkeopylos, but the translation and dedication would still be Atha-
nasios’ own. The dedicatory text is reproduced in LAURENT & GUILLOU 1960, 228–231). See
further MANOUSSACAS 1973.
188
Cf. GAMS 1873, 883; EUBEL 1914, 159.
189
Subsequently, Neilos (cf. BHG 1370) founded his own monastery, the Basilian abbey of
Grottaferrata which became renowned for its scriptorium. On the relations between Monte-
cassino and Byzantium, see BLOCH 1986.
190
On the illuminative art, see TOUBERT 1971; BELTING 1974. Francis Newton, in his impres-
sive treatment of the Montecassino scriptorium and library, makes no mention of Byzantine
influence (NEWTON 1999).
248
Secular offices
Among the secular offices the prime one is the king or "# . This is also
the first one mentioned in Text 81, more specifically, the king “of Aragon
and the two Sicilies.” The background of this title reaches back to the revolt
called the Sicilian Vespers. In the war that followed, Peter III of Aragon
made common cause with Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos against Char-
les I of Anjou, and in the peace of 1302 the Norman kingdom of Sicily was
divided into two.191 The island of Sicily came under Aragonese rule while the
mainland of Southern Italy remained under the Angevins. This situation
lasted until 1442, when Alfonso V of Aragon defeated René of Anjou and
proclaimed himself Rex Sicilie citra et ultra farum.192 After Alfonso’s death
in 1458, the supremacy was divided between his son, Ferdinand I, king of
Naples,193 and the younger brother of Alfonso, Giovanni II, king of Aragon
and Sicily. The two Sicilies were united once more in 1503, and stayed so
more or less continuously until 1860. Alfonso V was one of the few Western
leaders who advocated a counter-attack on the Turks on behalf of the col-
lapsing Byzantine empire (even if his main interest in this was the Catalan
trade in the Levant). His military involvement in Albania did encourage
other Balkan princes to turn to him in the hope of refuge and aid, among
them Thomas Palaiologos of the Morea. Alfonso took a great interest in cul-
tural matters. Though he never learnt Greek himself, he prized Lorenzo
Valla’s translations of Greek literature, and many other Italian humanists
dedicated their translations to him (Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and
Pier Candido Decembrio were among these). Even more important for the
assessment of Text 81 is the fact that, as a result of Alfonso’s contacts with
the activities of Italian humanists, he warmly welcomed and offered payment
to any Greek scholar who chose to settle in Naples. Thus, Gregory Tipher-
nas, George Trapezuntios of Crete, and Theodore Gazes were among those
who benefitted from Alfonso’s ambitions as a “Renaissance king.”194
Under the office of princeps we find the prince of Taranto together with
the initial “M.” This is an odd combination: there was no such person in the
191
On Michael VIII Palaiologos’ role in the uprise against the Angevins, see his “autobiogra-
phy” (ed. GRÉGOIRE 1959). The emperor’s description of his life and deeds is part of a typikon
for the convent of St. Demetrios in Constantinople (GRUNEBAUM 1964, 97). On the Sicilian
Vespers, see also GEANAKOPLOS 1959, 335–367.
192
Alfonso’s royal claim to Naples was recognized by Pope Eugenius IV in 1443. The reason
why the Kingdom of Naples continued to be called another “Sicily,” derives from its histori-
cal origin as part of the Norman conquest of Sicily. The lighthouse—Farum—at the straits of
Messina marked the border between the two Sicilies. The alternative formula which we find
in Text 81, Rex utriusque Siciliae, was also employed for titulating Alfonso V, and appears in
the record of the parliament as early as 1443 (RYDER 1976, 32).
193
Note that Alfonso’s son Ferdinand (Ferrante) I of Naples and Jerusalem is not the same
person as Ferdinand of Sicily (later also named Ferdinand II of Aragon and, after 1504, Ferdi-
nand III of Naples), who was mentioned in n. 187, above. The two kings were first cousins.
194
On Alfonso’s contacts with the humanist movement and his ambitions to create a library
and center of scholarship at Naples, see RYDER 1990, 313–335.
249
fifteenth century or in the time nearby. It is of course easy to imagine that a

single letter could have been misread or mistaken, especially by copying.195
If we look at which princes could come into consideration, the first to bear
the title in the fifteenth century was Raimondo Del Balzo Orsini, who shoul-
dered the principate in 1399. He died in 1406. Ladislao d’Angio Durazzo
then laid siege to Taranto twice (in 1406 and 1407), but, unable to defeat the
widow of Raimondo, Maria d’Enghien, he decided to marry her instead, and
so attained the title aimed at. After Ladislao’s death in 1414, the principate
came into the hands of his sister, Giovanna II of Naples, but she chose to
pass it on to her sister-in-law and the latter’s children. This way a Del Balzo
Orsini once again came to be in charge of the principate, viz., the first-born
son of Raimondo Del Balzo Orsini and Maria d’Enghien, Giovannantonio
Del Balzo Orsini. In 1435 Giovannantonio was imprisoned together with
Alfonso of Aragon, and they were taken to Milan by Filippo Maria Visconti.
The imprisonment and their joint interests bound the prince and the Ara-
gonese together, and after the latter had been made king of Naples they had a
mutually beneficial relation for many years.196 Ferdinand I of Naples, who
succeeded his father to the throne in 1458, did not have the same generous
attitude towards the prince, and withdrew the privileges in 1463. If—with
the aid of the information furnished above—one should have a guess at the
prince referred to in the address of Text 81, the natural choice would be Gio-
vannantonio Del Balzo Orsini, prince of Taranto 1414–1465, based on his
time of reign and also his connections to Alfonso. With this solution in mind,
we may return to the initial problem with this address, i.e. why someone
would put in a prince’s name starting with an “M” here. If the copyist’s point
of departure was the medieval Greek way of spelling the name Del Balzo,
we would actually end up with an “M” in the Latin text.197
The initial preceding the title “Sabaudiae duci” in the manuscript presents
a comparable problem. The initial looks like a “G,” but no duke during the
fifteenth century bore a name starting with that letter. There are only two
candidates for this address—if in fact it is supposed to point to a real duke of
Savoy: Amadeo VIII or Ludovico I of Savoy. Amadeo VIII was the first to
bear the title duca (Sigismund, king of Rome and later emperor, raised the
former countship to ducal dignity in 1416). Successful in his reign as the
leading prince and politician in Italia Subalpina, Amadeo VIII nevertheless
decided in 1434 to retire from his secular commitments. He moved to Cas-
tello di Ripaglia at the Lake Geneva, where he founded the religious and
chivalrous order of San Maurizio. In 1439 he was elected pope—i.e. anti-
pope—by the Council of Basel, and took the papal name of Felix V. The
Christian leadership in general, and the kingdoms of Europe, did not look
195
A similar case is notated in ÖBERG 1997, 17.
196
PONTIERI 1935, 611.
197
One may compare, for example, the spelling of De Bagi as
°<\ (PLP 19608).
250
upon this renewed division of the Church with approval. In fact, Amadeo
VIII was supported only by his son, who was now the duke of Savoy, by
some German potentates and universities, by the university of Cracow, and,
for a period, by Alfonso of Aragon.198 Only two cardinals were devoted to
the antipope: Hugues-Lancelot de Lusignan and Louis Aleman. The former
was connected to the house of Savoy through his sister Anne de Lusignan,
princess of Cyprus and wife of Ludovico I of Savoy, i.e. the son of
Amadeo/Pope Felix V. In 1449 the schism came to an end as Felix V laid
down the Papal Tiara, and accepted the rank of “cardinale del titolo di S.
Sabina.” He died at Geneva in 1451.
Ludovico I of Savoy succeeded his father as head of the duchy in 1434.
Although not as prominent as his father, he did play a certain role in the poli-
tical complications which followed upon the proclamation of Repubblica
Ambrosiana (1447). Ludovico was—as was the marquis of Este—one of the
many participants who wanted their share at the scramble which seemed to
be at hand in Lombardy. When the people of Milan in their precarious situa-
tion searched for a solution, there were voices raised in favor of the duke of
Savoy (as also of King Alfonso V) as a possible new leader of the duchy.
Eventually, they unanimously advocated Francesco Sforza, who became the
new duke of Milan in 1450. At the time of Ludovico’s death in 1465, the
ducal title was passed on to his son, Amadeo IX.
Of the two dukes of Savoy we have been discussing here, the likeliest
guess would be that the titulary address in Text 81 refers to the latter, Ludo-
vico I, considering the fact that he had taken over the title in 1434. Even
though his father Amadeo continued to be influential after that date, we must
bear in mind that he then went by the name of Felix V, and politically also
acted in quite a different role than before. Ludovico’s marital connection to
the kingdom of Cyprus is another detail which ought to have been of interest
to a Greek scribe. One may add that, palaeographically, a carelessly slanted
“µ” may easily be mistaken for a “” in the process of copying. The apo-
graph would in that case reproduce a “G” in the Latin text, just as we have it
in Text 81.
In the case of the marquis, we need not guess anymore: the scribe gave us
the full name of Leonello d’Este, eminent marquis of Ferrara (1407–1450).
Following a military education, Leonello became acquainted with humanist
studies, which flourished in Ferrara thanks to Giovanni Aurispa in the 1420s
and Guarino Guarini da Verona in the 1430s.199 Under Guarino’s guidance he
pursued studies in rhetoric, history and philosophy, and at the opening of the
Council of Ferrara in 1438, it was Leonello d’Este who gave an elegant wel-
coming speech in Latin on behalf of Pope Eugenius IV. In political matters
198
VALERI 1949, 476.
199
For the section on Leonello d’Este, I rely mainly on BRUNELLI 1993. On Guarino’s role in
educating the prince, see also PADE 1990.
251
Leonello held a fairly low profile and was renowned for his prudence and
ability to keep Ferrara out of most armed conflicts—not an easy task in those
decades in Italy, when alliances with various neighboring city states needed
shifting now and again. During Leonello’s reign, which extended from 1441
until his death, he earned a grand reputation as “principe saggio.” The Court
of Ferrara became a center of humanistic learning and cultural events
through Leonello’s hospitality to scholars such as Giovanni Aurispa, Pier
Candido Decembrio, and Theodore Gazes, as well as to poets, musicians and
painters (among these Antonio Pisanello and Iacopo Bellini).200 The Biblio-
teca Estense was another chief concern of Leonello’s. Leonello’s father,
Niccolò III had begun this enterprise, buying books, ordering copies, and
engaging the somewhat ruthless book trader Giovanni Aurispa at his court.
Leonello continued to consolidate their holdings, and furthermore embraced
the idea of creating a sort of public library, a lasting collection of all litera-
ture—Latin, Greek, and vernacular—for “the common use of learned
men.”201
The city of Fondi is situated to the south of Rome, along the Via Appia,
and not very far from Montecassino. To find a count of Fondi whose name
starts with an H, we must go to Onorato (Honoratus) II Caetani d’Aragona,
whose countship lasted for half a century (1441–1491).202 The Aragonian
branch of the Caetani family was particularly powerful in the time of
Onorato II, who, besides filling the offices of logothete and protonotary, also
was a close personal friend of Ferdinand I of Naples.203 During his countship,
Onorato II contributed to the construction of several churches at Fondi and
furthermore to the beautiful palace where he kept a grandiose court.204 As he
was one of the richest and most influential magnates of the Kingdom of
Naples, it is particularly interesting that an inventory of all his mobile and
immobile possessions was taken down at the time of his death in 1491. This
manuscript has recently been made accessible through the efforts of Sylvie
Pollastri. According to the inventory, Onorato’s library seems to have con-
tained, among other items, Aesop (“un livre précieux”), Aristotle’s Ethics,
200
On the patronage of the Court of Ferrara, see further PADE, WAAGE PETERSEN & QUARTA
1990.
201
CELENZA 2004, 52. On the Biblioteca Estense, see CAPPELLI 1889; GRAFTON 1997, 19–49.
202
The other count of Fondi with the same name, Onorato I, was the grandfather of Onorato
II. He died in 1400.
203
Sicily and the southern parts of the Italian peninsula were substantially hellenized during
several centuries and the Byzantine administrative system based on themes functioned also in
this western outpost of the Byzantine state. This explains the protracted use of Byzantine
administrative titles like logothete and protonotary, even at the time when Sicily had become
a Norman (and later Aragonese) colony. The office which Onorato II held at the court of
Naples may be compared to the chancellor’s.
204
CAETANI 1930, 251.
252
Cicero’s Tusculans, Plautus’ comedies, De bello Gothorum, Valerius Maxi-

mus, books on warfare, grammars, and missals.205
Sansoneto, addressed in Text 81 as a magnificent and excellent soldier
and baron, is so far an obscure figure. I will present two alternative solutions
here, although they must both be seen as tentative at this stage. Sansoneto’s
second name, “de Lusi…” or in Greek “
@ µ...” (neither entry is
fully readable), may point to the house of Lusignan, the French noble family
which included among its most memorable medieval conquests the crowns
of Cyprus, Jerusalem, and Armenia. In the PLP, several ways of spelling
“Lusignan” in Greek are recorded, but no entry includes a person named
Sansoneto.206 Perhaps we must at this time be content with the discovery of
what could be yet a member of the Lusignan house, soldier and baron, but
otherwise unknown.207 Nevertheless, since it is somewhat astonishing to find
a person belonging to such a well-known royal family not accounted for
already, I would like to propose an alternative interpretation: this one in-
volves a province in today’s Albania, called Lushnja. Having been a part of
the Despotate of Epiros, Lushnja came under Venetian authority in the fif-
teenth century. Soldiers of Albanian origin had at the end of the fourteenth
or early fifteenth century settled in large numbers in Morea, summoned there
by the Palaiologan Despot Theodore I to help impede the Ottoman expansion
on the Peloponnese.208 It is not impossible that a soldier and baron with a
family background in Lushnja could be the man we are looking for here.209
Towards the mid-fifteenth century, as the situation in Morea worsened, a
considerable number of these Albanians settlers chose to emigrate once
more, this time to Italy.210 Many were employed as light cavalry forces, stra-
dioti, by the Venetians in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, much appreci-
ated for their style of fighting and tactics. Another characteristic which, ac-
205
POLLASTRI 2006, xxiii.
206
PLP, nos.15056–15087. The varieties in spelling are recorded in connection to no. 15059.
The text offered by the Escorialensis ª.IV.1.,
@ µ$, does not help us here.
207
In the late 16th c., Steffano Lusignano di Cipro wrote a work on Cyprus, Chorograffia et
breve historia universale dell’ Isola de Cipro (ed. PELOSI 2001). There is in Steffano’s render-
ing of the House of Lusignan no mention of a baron Sansoneto de Lusignan. But he does have
an enumeration of the other houses of Cyprus, which might be of interest (section 15): among
them there is one Cypriot family with the name of Sanson. Could we suppose a connection
here? The French baptismal name Sansonnet, since the late Middle Ages also known as the
name for a bird, the starling, is the hypocoristic form of the biblical name Samson or Sanson
(DAUZAT 1949, 126 and 217).
208
According to Dionysios Zakythinos, some 10 000 men came together with their families
and livestock (ZAKYTHINOS 1975, I, 131 and II, 31–36).
209
That there is an island at the coastline of Southern Albania called Sazan (%; Ital.
Saseno) does not make this less intriguing (though it may just be a coincidence of little sig-
nificance, since the name Sansoneto is explainable anyway). On the island Sazan, see LAM-
PROS 1914.
210
Not least they seem to have chosen Sicily and southern Italy as their new place of settle-
ment, perhaps feeling more at home there due to their double identity as both Albanians and
Morean Greeks (cf. ZAKYTHINOS 1975, II, 36).
253
cording to Nicholas Pappas, made these Greek-Albanian forces attractive to

Italian leaders, was their preference of honors and privileges over pay: they
were simply cheaper to hire than Western mercenaries. “The stradioti actu-
ally sought out favors in the form of parades and titles, and the frugal Ve-
netian government was only too glad to oblige them.”211 Maybe our San-
soneto, both a baron and an excellent soldier, is a good example of such an
officer?
In the search for a Paduan jurisconsult, one may consult the minutes of
examinations held at the University of Padua. The records from the years
1431–1450 testify of the presence of a certain Antonius de Padua on at least
ten occasions, mostly at examinations in civil law and always in the duty of
faculty beadle.212 The earliest records designate him magister, later he is
called ser. The term of office is either bidellus iuristarum or bidellus gener-
alis universitatis. His by-name seems to have been Baptista, but usually he is
merely called Antonius de Padua. Now, could this be the man mentioned in
Text 81 as an admirable and distinguished law teacher? I doubt it: the pres-
ence of the beadle is mentioned in the minutes together with that of the no-
tarius curie et collegii, thus indicating that this Antonius only performed an
administrative or formal role at the examinations. Rather, I think we need to
look at another Antonius, even though he is generally called Antonius de
Rosellis or Antonius de Aretio, after his birth-town Arezzo. To call him An-
tonio de Padua in the titulary address would be based on his long and well-
known teaching activity at the University of Padua.213 Perhaps a humorous
hint at the local saint with the same name could have played a part too.214
Antonio Roselli (1381–1466) started out with legal studies in Bologna 1406–
7, lectured in Siena and Rome, and became the ambassador of Emperor Sig-
ismund, of King Alfonso of Naples and of the Cardinals’ Collegium. In 1431
he went to Basel as the legate of Pope Eugenius IV; an outcome of Anto-
nio’s commitment to this task was the treatise he wrote on the legal side of
church councils, De conciliis ac synodis generalibus.215 After he wrote his
work Monarchia sive de potestate imperatoris et pape, the situation became
increasingly difficult for him in Rome, and instead of an ecclesiastical career
he took up a position in canon law at the University of Padua in 1438.216 He
211
See online-article by PAPPAS (http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html).
212
ZONTA & BROTTO 1922; see index, s.vv. “Antonius de Padua” and “Antonius bidellus
iurist.”
213
See, for example, Johann Friedrich von Schulte who calls him a monarcha juris (SCHULTE
1875, I, 304).
214
On Saint Anthony of Padua (ca. 1195–1231), see AASS Junii II (Dies 13), 703–780.
215
On this treatise, see further WEITZ 2002.
216
Word has it that Antonio Roselli during his time in Basel had been promised an appoint-
ment to cardinal, which the Pope later called off for reasons of Antonio having been married
twice (ZEDLER 1742, vol. 32, 871–872). Antonio Roselli certainly had enough inside experi-
ence of the executive power to substantiate his suggestions to differentiate between imperial
and papal authority, but his treatises may have had a bitter personal background as well: he
expressly emphasizes the possibility of a pope making mistakes and the importance of a judi-
254
continued his teaching there well into his eighties—the last consilia that he
undersigned show an old man’s wobbly and barely legible signature.217
In the case of the artium doctor the specifications of the formulary are
unambiguous. Matheus de Perusio is found in the very same Paduan univer-
sity records and during the same period of time. In 1432 the “licencia et
publica in med. egr. arc. doct. mag.” of Matheo (or Matheolo) Baldasari was
approbated.218 Later on, he was to become the most famous medicus from
Perugia in the Quattrocento. His teaching career started off with medicine
and philosophy in Perugia in 1427. In 1447 he became a lecturer at the fac-
ulty of medicine in Padua, the university where he came to spend most of his
active years. He died and was buried in Padua in 1479.219 One of his numer-
ous disciples during these years, Hartmann Schedel, has left us a eulogy that
is quite fascinating to read—it certainly shows that the superlatives in our
titulary record are in no way an exaggeration compared to his posthumous
reputation:
Matheolo of Perugia, the most learned among the physicians of our time,
king among philosophers, and simply the most prominent in all liberal arts
and every branch of science, my most erudite teacher. His were the lectures
which I, Hartmann Schedel from Nuremberg, Paduan doctor, sat in on for
three years, and from him [...] I received my doctorate in Padua.220
Matheolo from Perugia was renowned not only for his skills in medicine and
philosophy, but also for his rhetorical talent. He gave several orations at the
university, and seems to have had a wide-embracing interest in humanistic
and scientific studies.221 Later on in his eulogy, Hartmann Schedel especially
mentions Matheolo’s expertise in poetry, oratory, astronomy and music.222
As for Hartmann himself, he went from Nuremberg to Padua to study medi-
cine in the 1460s, just as his elder cousin Hermann had done before him. He
cial system which endorses the deposing of a pope who shows misconduct in office. On
Roselli’s treatise Monarchia, see THOMSON 1975 and WEITZ 2002, 49–114.
217
See BELLONI 1986, 143–149, who also includes information on manuscripts and editions
of Antonio Roselli’s works.
218
ZONTA & BROTTO 1922, 206.
219
VERRUA 1924, 88.
220
Matheolus Perusinus Medicus doctissimus hoc tempore medicorum, ac philosophorum
monarcha, omniumque liberalium artium cunctarumque scientiarum facile princeps, precep-
tor meus eruditissimus. Quem ego Hartmannus Schedel Nurembergensis doctor Patavinus
tribus annis ordinarie legentem auscultavi, a quo [...] doctoratus Padue accepi (SCHEDEL
1493, cclii).
221
On Matheolus’ oratory, see SIRAISI 2004, 193f., with further literature. For his commentary
on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, see KIBRE & SIRAISI 1975. His treatise on mnemonics, De
Memoria, was reprinted time and again from 1474 and onwards (KLEBS 1938, 222f.).
222
Pietro Verrua (1924, 87–88) seems not to have distinguished between Hartmann Schedel
and his cousin Hermann Schedel, who also studied in Padua. Thus, it was of course Hermann
who became a laureate in medicine in 1442 (the younger cousin, Hartmann, was then only
two years old).
255
attended the medical lectures of Matheolo Mathioli of Perugia as well as the

Greek lectures of Demetrios Chalkokandyles,223 and became one of the earli-
est Germans to know Greek. His Nuremberg Chronicle, Liber Chronicarum,
printed by Anton Koberger in 1493, was the fruit of his extensive book col-
lecting and compilation, and is famous for its more than 1 800 woodcuts
created by Michael Wolgemut and Wilhelm Pleydenwurff.224
On the subject of circulation of Greek books in Italy during the humanist
era, one is bound to come across the name of Giovanni Aurispa. In Text 81,
this doctissimus et eloquentissimus vir is mentioned in connection with the
academic teachers of law and medicine, and right before the addresses to
people merited with more general virtues: the rich and noble, the prudent,
erudite, and benevolent. This appears to be on the mark, since Aurispa never
held any official university post, but certainly was renowned as a dedicated
book collector and humanist. He was born in Sicily in 1376 and spent his
youth in Naples. Already in 1413, he brought with him to Italy some Greek
manuscripts from a trip in the East (among other things a volume from Chios
containing texts by Euripides and Sophocles).225 But he collected the lion’s
share of his Greek books in Constantinople where he was sent by Gian Fran-
cesco Gonzaga in 1421. Aurispa was received at the Court of Emperor
Manuel Palaiologos, and the emperor’s son, John, decided to make Aurispa
his “secretary.” When John Palaiologos went on a diplomatic tour to the
courts of Western Europe, Aurispa escorted him as far as Venice, Verona
and Milan. The outcome of this séjour in Constantinople was that a shipload
of far more than two hundred Greek books reached Italy’s humanists, a vital
contribution to fuel the early humanist movement and the study of Greek in
the West.226 Giovanni Aurispa’s reputation as a teacher and scholar is less
flattering, but he nevertheless spent three years teaching at the Florentine
studio and became the personal tutor of Niccolò III d’ Este’s son Melia-
duse.227 At the court of Ferrara, he seems to have been content to settle down.
Although Aurispa did go on several embassies for the Estensi and the papal
Curia (one of these were to the Council of Basel, in 1433), for the most part
he chose to remain at Ferrara up until his death in 1459.228
I have not been able to establish with certainty the identity of the noble-
man Paulus Sabellus. He ought to have belonged to one of the mightier fami-
223
For the various forms of this name, see PLP 30511.
224
On the Nuremberg Chronicle, see WILSON & WILSON 1976. On Schedel’s humanist inter-
ests as reflected by his library, see STAUBER 1908.
225
BIGI 1962, 593.
226
As Nigel Wilson points out, the often quoted figure of 238 manuscripts refers to the vol-
umes containing pagan texts alone; we do not know how many volumes with patristic and
other spiritual contents Aurispa added to these (WILSON 1992, 25).
227
In Hartmann Schedel’s Nuremberg Chronicle, only one line is devoted to Aurispa: Joan-
nes quoque Aurispa secretarius apostolicus rhetor luculentus in precio fuit et quedam compo-
suit (SCHEDEL 1493, ccxlvi).
228
On the inventory of Aurispa’s own library at his death in 1459, see FRANCESCHINI 1976.
256
lies in Rome, the Savelli alias Sabelli. To this family, which became promi-
nent in the thirteenth century, are counted cardinals and even a couple of
popes (Honorius III and Honorius IV), furthermore a considerable number of
condottieri, mercenary leaders.229 Several members of the Savelli family
were christened Paulus. One Paolo Savelli (1350–1405) served initially as a
military commander under Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, but after tem-
porary assignments in Florence and Bologna he became the general of the
troops of Venice.230 He died of the plague while besieging Padua. A wooden
equestrian sculpture of him was erected shortly afterwards in Santa Maria
Gloriosa dei Frari, a church that was still under construction at the time of
his death. This Savelli was apparently also a wealthy man, since he contrib-
uted to the building fund of the same church.231 The address in Text 81,
which describes Paulus as nobilis et dives, < ¤ #, would thus
be eminently met in this condottiere. Another Paulo is mentioned briefly in
Pompeo Litta’s genealogical work: the son of Mariano Savelli and Servanzia
Del Balzo, i.e, belonging to the Palombara branch of the Savelli house, this
Paulo served in the army of the Florentine Republic in 1479.232 The occasion
was the war against Pope Sixtus IV after the so-called “Pazzi conspiracy”
(the attempted coup d’état against Lorenzo de’ Medici and the assassination
of his brother Giuliano de’ Medici). Whereas the date of birth of this condot-
tiere is unknown, he must have died long before 1509, according to Litta.233
Towards the end of Text 81, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify
the people referred to. The individuals called Petrus and Antonius may for-
ever be hidden in history. There are ten of these less specific entries, ad-
dressed to friends, to a brother, to a son, and for the rest they simply give
different options for how to approach anyone in letter form with courtesy
and affability. Even though the addresses to a brother or a son might be
aimed at family relations, one could also, and with a certain extent of prob-
ability, expect them to pertain to ecclesiastical or monastic relations, as when
a cleric writes to a colleague or an abbot to his fellow brother in Christ. In
my survey above, I have not brought up the question of polite phrases and
the different levels of subservience and flattery, but one may easily imagine
the importance of this matter for the Byzantine émigrés. Naturally, it had
been of great significance in Constantinople too, in contacts with various
229
The Savelli family was conferred the office of conclave marshal by Pope Gregory X, a
position which was hereditary until the family’s extinction in 1712, and which now belongs to
the Chigi family (BAUMGARTNER 2003, 40).
230
ZEDLER 1742, vol. 34, 302.
231
On the sculpture of Paulo Savelli, see VALENTINO 1953.
232
His father Mariano, also a military man, was for a long time employed by the Aragonese of
Naples, then by Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (1417–68), and finally by Pope Sisto IV
(LITTA 1872, plate VII).
233
“[M]orì assai prima del 1509” (LITTA, ibid.). There may, of course, have been another 15th-
c. Paulus Sabellus, noble and rich, who did not make it to the annals of history but happened
to be mentioned in our titulary collection.
257
court officials and servants of the Church. In the new political situation,
where one needed to adjust oneself to Western feudal hierarchies and con-
ventions, the question of language might become yet a stumbling block. The
scribe of Gr 8 apparently saw a formulary like Text 81 as a useful remedy
for this, even though we do not know whether he needed it for his own sake
or if he was teaching someone else how to navigate in an hierarchical soci-
ety.
The formulary reflecting a certain milieu

The model of Text 81 may have been bilingual or just in one language—we
cannot tell at this stage. Nonetheless, the inaccurate initials in our Latin ver-
sion (M. for del Balzo, G. from a misread µ / , and probably P. from an
original ¶.), do seem to indicate that the original text was written by a
Greek-speaking scribe.234 The person who created the original formulary
either knew his way around the high and mighty in Italy or compiled his text
using existing letters or letter collections where the persons were mentioned
by name. Can we pin down when and where the original titulary collection
was created? By looking at the dates—life span, time of appointment, et
cetera—for the persons mentioned in the addresses, and combining them, we
may at least narrow the scope for when the compilation would have been up
to date. This can prove helpful even when not each and every entry adds up
(as when a compiler makes use of extant letters of an older date).
Pope: no name/date
Cardinal: Bessarion, appointed cardinal in December 1439
appointed Sabinensis 5. March 1449
appointed Tusculanensis 23. April 1449 † 1472
Bishop: F. Pizolpasso bishop of Pavia 1427–June 1435. † 1443
Abbot: A. Chalkeopylos abbot in Patirion 1448–1457 † 1497
Priest: Demetrios of S. Maria Maioris (no further identification)
Monk: Marco of Monte Cassino (no further identification)
King: Alfonso V ruled over both Sicilies from 1442 † 1458
Prince: G. Del Balzo Orsini ruler of Tarent from 1414 † 1465
Duke: Ludovico of Savoy duke from 1434 † 1465
234
From the page layout it is clear that in Gr 8 the Latin text was copied prior to the Greek;
the Greek words are carefully positioned to fit on top of each Latin equivalent. The nib width
and ink color used in the entry mentioning Marcus, monk of Monte Cassino, also suggest that
the scribe, Theodoros, either used a model which allowed him to supplement the Latin—the
“.d.” (for “dominus”) is a correction added simultaneously with the Greek translation—or else
that Theodoros knew enough Latin phrasing to supplement this text from the Greek wording
in the model.
258
Marquis: Leonello d’Este marquis of Ferrara from 1441 † 1450

Count: Onorato II countship from 1441 † 1491
Soldier and baron: Sansoneto de Lusi... (no further identification)
Jurisconsult: Antonio de Roselli in Padua from 1438 † 1466
Doctor of arts & medicine: Matheolo of Perugia, teaching in
Perugia from 1427 and in Padua from 1432 † 1479
Learned & eloquent: Giovanni Aurispa † 1459
Noble & rich: Paolo Savelli (uncertain identification: perhaps † 1405)
Some of these timespans are too wide to provide any guidance for us. The
time of reign for the king, marquis, and count points to a date after 1441–42
and before 1450, and most of the other entries would fit into the 1440s. The
cardinal and abbot entries lever the balance towards the middle of the cen-
tury, or 1448–49. On the other hand, if we consider the possibility of a cul-
tural network which included the persons above, and perhaps even an exist-
ing letter collection, the most interesting period would be around the time of
the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence. The contacts and friendships made in
that setting, through contacts between Roman and Byzantine prelates, intel-
lectuals, and political leaders, have left vestiges far and wide in letters and
notes which still remain in Italian library collections and elsewhere. Above, I
have pointed to Pizolpasso’s wide correspondence with persons in the hu-
manist circles, something which may explain why he is included in the for-
mulary even though his Pavian appointment lies outside our tentative time
span of the 1440s. Even if we suppose a general connection between many
of the above-mentioned persons mainly at the Florence council proceedings,
i.e. when Pizolpasso had already become archbishop of Milan, he would still
have been a prominent figure. Earlier letters from or to him, where he is
titulated episcopus papiensis, could have been available in somebody else’s
copy. Agostino Sottili mentions the correspondence between Aurispa, Pizol-
passo, and Leonello d’Este.235 We have seen that Athanasios Chalkeopylos
maintained contacts with Bessarion and many others. Other nodal points of
great importance would be Bessarion and his “academy” in Rome, or one of
the courts which became locales of benefaction for Byzantine and Italian
intellectuals, whether at Naples, Fondi, or Ferrara.
On the other hand, with an epistolary network one need not gather every-
body in one place, and this is convenient when dealing with Text 81. Geo-
graphically the entries cover parts of southern Italy, with its Byzantine con-
nections still operating in monastery circles, further Naples, Rome, and other
princely centers in central and northern Italy, and university settings such as
Padua. The titulary collection suggests the networking which was called for
235
SOTTILI 1966, 63.
259
if one arrived in Italy and wanted to do well as a Byzantine scholar. At the

time of the humanist movement, one could make a living as a Byzantine
immigrant by teaching, copying manuscripts, translating Greek texts into
Latin, obtaining Byzantine books for the Western European market, et cet-
era. But this was not done in a vacuum: someone had to pay for this work,
and that is why an address collection like the one in Text 81 was practical.
Ideas of what to include in a formulary need not always have come from
actual letters. Another way to discover the networking would be from dedi-
catory addresses in manuscripts (and later in prints). Examples of this activ-
ity were seen in the case of Athanasios Chalkeopylos (links to Bessarion,
Nicholas of Cusa,236 to the royal house of Aragon/Naples), likewise in con-
nection with Pizolpasso. The phenomenon becomes even more obvious
when we look at major patrons of literary endeavors, like Alfonso V,
Leonello d’Este and, once again, Bessarion.
The year 1449 is a plausible construction date for the original titulary col-
lection, but perhaps we may speculate a bit further: the two entries for Bes-
sarion could point to a construction date in the spring of 1449. Was Bes-
sarion just about to be transferred to Tusculum when the formulary was writ-
ten? Another possibility would be that the original entry concerned the see of
S. Sabina and that the subsequent entry is a later addition, to update the con-
tents of the formulary. Considering the fact that the Escorialensis ª.IV.1,
where a text very similar to Gr 8’s Text 81 is included, has been dated to the
mid-fifteenth century, our hypothetical construction date becomes more or
less contemporary to that volume. One might even suspect that the Escorial
text proffers the “archetype” for our Text 81. From the inclusion of the ad-
dress collection in Gr 8 some thirty years after the original list was created,
we may gather that new readers (newly arrived émigrés?) could still avail
themselves of its contents: the way to address the authorities would be the
same, even if names and initials mattered less to later generations.
In Chapter 3, I suggested that we need to look for possible links between
Gr 8 and other scribes and manuscripts from the same time and area, in order
to establish whether the scribe Theodoros could be tied to a cultural network.
A name that was mentioned (on the basis of corresponding watermarks) was
Michael Apostoles. In this connection, it is worth noting that Athanasios
Chalkeopylos may be one of the scribes represented in the Bruxellensis
11270–11275, a folder containing several writings mainly emanating from
the circle of scribes around Michael Apostoles. Dieter Harlfinger attributes
ff. 104–105v to Chalkeopylos (although with the reservation that his hand-
writing shows resemblance to that of Demetrios Sgouropoulos), and suggests
that Bessarion may be one of the other two hands represented in the same
quire.237 These leaves, containing Aristotle’s Metaphysica, are followed by a
236
Cf. MANOUSSACAS 1973, 517.
237
MORAUX 1976, 81.
260
quire containing Manuel Christonymos’ Monody in Michael Apostoles’

hand, the same, rare, text which happens to appear in Gr 8 as well (Text
20).238 Even if this connection between the personage of the formulary and
the scribe of Gr 8 is tentative, it may offer an opening for continued discus-
sions of how texts and manuscripts present us with vestiges of literary activ-
ity and textual transmission in the cultural networks of the Quattrocento.
Addendum: The formulary in Codex Escorialensis .IV.1

The Escorialensis .IV.1 originated from Cyprus in the mid-fifteenth cen-
tury, but since the manuscript is a composite written by several hands it is
not obvious when the formulary was added to the book.239 What Hugo Rabe
did not observe was that there are actually two separate formularies in the
same quire, written by different hands and in different ink.240 The first one,
on f. 301r–v, is an abridged version of the Ekthesis Nea, which breaks off in
the middle of the verso page with the rest of the page blank. On f. 302r–v,
another scribe then added a second collection of letter headings, analogous
to Text 81 in Gr 8 except that it is given in Greek only. The formularies are
written on the first two leaves of a binion, the next two leaves of which are
blank (ff. 303–304). This quire and the next one, which contains patristic
letters written by yet another hand (ff. 305–312), have been inserted into a
sequence of quires housing Emmanuel Raul’s letters (four quaternions are
involved: ff. 293–300; ff. 314–337; note that f. 113 does not exist).241
Gregorio de Andrés’ catalog description of the manuscript incorrectly indi-
cates that Emmanuel Raul’s letters continue on ff. 301–302, and makes no
reference whatsoever to any formularies.242
The Escorial formulary (i.e., the one on f. 302) was added on a blank page,
probably as an appendage to the preceding formulary. It is, despite the confu-
sion of quires just mentioned, situated in a section of the manuscript wholly
dominated by letters and letter collections.243 The text is written in black ink, in
238
Before these texts ended up in a folder in the Royal Library at Brussels, they were part of a
two volume composite manuscript belonging to Pierre Pantin. The quire with Aristotle’s
Metaphysica and the quire with Christonymos’ Monody were included in the second volume,
though in reverse order (cf. MORAUX 1976, 78–83).
239
See the catalog entry in ANDRÉS 1967, 81–85. I would like to express my gratitude to
Professor José Luis del Valle Merino at the El Escorial Library for giving me the opportunity
to consult this manuscript firsthand.
240
Cf. RABE 1909, 286.
241
A reason for this misplacement at binding could be the quire numbering, since in the lower
margin of the last verso of f. 300 and of f. 312 there is the quire number “-.” The number
“"-” follows on f. 321v. The quire number on f. 312 is apparently not in the same hand as the
other two mentioned.
242
ANDRÉS 1967, 82; cf. the edition of Emmanuel Raul’s letters, in LOENERTZ 1956.
243
In addition to Emmanuel Raul’s letters, the following authors are included: Basil the Great,
Gregory of Nazianzos, Libanios, Isidore of Pelousion, Synesios of Cyrene, Manuel Palaio-
261
what seems to be a skilled hand, but the orthography is very confused. A com-
parison with Text 81 as it stands in Gr 8 reveals that the Escorial manuscript
gives a less complete text and muddles some of the items.244 It uses the superla-
tive throughout, whereas the Uppsala manuscript shows a gradation in line with
the status of the addressee. The place name in line 63, ¶% (Fondi) is dis-
torted: the scribe probably read the phi in the model as a tall one-stroke tau
with a loop, the way he himself often writes tau.
We have already seen that Text 81 in Gr 8 must have been copied from a
model; this would explain some of the peculiarities in initials and also the
concentration of entries which point to the 1440s, perhaps peaking in 1449.
Since the Escorialensis .IV.1 as a whole is dated to the mid-fifteenth cen-
tury, its formulary would thus chronologically be closer to the original
source. But since its readings are inferior in many places as compared to the
ones in Gr 8, my conclusion is that neither of the two is the model for the
other one. Rather, there must have been a third manuscript source to which
both of them are related, each in its own way.
In the Escorial manuscript a fascinating addition was put in at the end of the
formulary. It is an attempt to put together the opening of a letter to cardinal
Bessarion. We recognize the first phrase from the formulary itself, but then the
scribe continued with another few lines, as can be seen below. I keep the spell-
ing unchanged, except for using capital letters in names.

^ $ : –
@

% ²

$% $% · ·

%
@% #$%
¯ *<

^ ^ º%ï¯ =#¯
@#$

# \ Ð
_,
=\
@ @

%: –
logos. There are also some anonymous letters; cf. ANDRÉS 1967, 83. The codicological unit
ends right before f. 346 (after three blank leaves and the stub from a cut-out leaf).
244
Missing are, for example, the place name Patire, and Maria in the phrase “
¯ À<$ °-
$
¯ ° $.” Confusion as to which item some of the words belong, can be seen in
lines 25–29 and 77–79. The scribe has apparently made a leap from Ð<\´ (line 99) to
<
Î in the next item, thus mixing two items into one. The same could have happened in
line 97, where no brother is mentioned; perhaps he picked up the ending “ $´” from
the preceding item.
262
Afterword
We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets
Initially I stated that this would be a pilot study. It has been, but in two
meanings of the word: a study of the codex from different perspectives and a
study of the pilot himself, the " ò
""#$ Theodoros. The scribe has
been an important centripetal force, and I have hopefully shown that the
maze of texts was less chaotic than a first glance would suggest. Still, I hesi-
tate to demand full closure and coherence from a codex like this. It should be
allowed to sprawl, because that is part of the character of a composite with
miscellaneous contents. The centrifugal tendencies might have presented
themselves with more clarity had we chosen other foci in the analysis of the
contents. This inherent vacillation between openness and closure also means
that a different approach may be needed for another composite. One crucial
element must however be included: the codicological survey, which provides
the basis for assessing the structure of the whole codex and of the parts that
make up the whole.
Even though the scribe Theodoros has been very much present in this
study, we still know little of him as a person. Perhaps more information will
come to light in the future through the study of other manuscripts in his
handwriting or other sources. As for now, the “psychogram” is only initiated
on the grounds of his work procedure and the contents of his “one-volume
library.” In creating the codex Theodoros has woven a song of himself, and
we are subsequently invited to follow some of the threads. Maybe a hitherto
faded picture emerges, maybe we make a new one out of the fabric, based on
our world view and experience.
Appendix 1: Some inedita in Gr 8
Text 6
%' * +
/ ;/ <+;/ (f. 98r)
Á \

¯ ®_¯¨ ^, , , }
$ =. ~ + ^
\
@
=
Ú Á

¨ }¬ , Õ, $ø
%}Õ.
¯ + ®_¯ \
$¨ =
, @=
> #<
.
Á \
=¬
^ <
>¨1 ©, Û}, ¬, < ^ }¯.
Text 12
=>
? ;/ @ R#/ @
V@ (ff. 122v–127r)

\¨ }#\. ·= # ^ (#?)¨ @
\.
\ ¨

<#. <#_¨ # ¤ $.
·¨ #=$. <#%® (<$#%® LSJ)¨ ~ ".

*#%¨ #"%. + ¤ =
#¤
·#}
¨
$
. . }
+

= $¨
> _$#. .
· =¨ <_$# , @Ë $¨
}#¤
}, @
= \´. ¿ ~
.
#}¯ (-¬} LSJ)¨ $. ¨
> $. #\<
+
$
¨
>
_"
. · ~ }#>
^
· # # ¬¨ "%$.
+ #.
ý ^ Ú << $¨ ~ _#>
%.
@=$
. ·= =#¨ ~ <<.
·¨ @> º$ % Ê #"
¨ ¿
\_
%
$.

$_,
> # <
<#%¨
> #
>
$=.
¨
$. (- Du (123r) *#> %^¨
> }
.
Cange) ·}#
¨ $ @ |"$.
$%¨
>
. }#
$¨
>
$}##.
+
#¨
¯ }
> } . $.
1
The word suggested inside brackets is missing in the manuscript due to trimming of the
page; cf. John of Damascus, who calls the senses %
$ (Jo. Dam. virt., PG 95,
85B–C.), and Ath., De morbo 7, 26ff.
} #¨
> $. YZ < @[>

#<_ ¨ (-#_ LSJ)
¯ <#$¨ %$.

>
<$. <# (i.e. <#<<)¨ @Ë <<$"
*#¨
> Ã#. =.
< $¨
¯ #

}$. <#¨ ¬% ~
$
, ~

¤ |
¨
> "" #.
# . <#$<% (i.e. <#¬_%/"#¬_%)¨
>
#=$¨ #<_ (-#_ LSJ) "#.
_
¤ _#. <# ^¨
> .
*#"¨
} (i.e.
_) <¨
> #% #\
~ Ë > @=. #.
· ¨
> #<%. <#¨
> # (i.e. <#-).
·#¨
>

.

}¨
> _#_. YZ @[
"
¨ <_$# @Ë (- > "#¨
>
.
corr. supra lin.) ®$=. ¨
> ·#,
+
_¨
> _ "
. º.
·} (}% cod.) \
¨ ^ }##%¨ \#%
, #=, ·=
\% @=$ =.
\#. (cf. Gal. 10.578) #_¨ Á }#

$¨
> ¡<<"
, @ }<\ (}-?)¨ #}%$.
_$#
·= . ¨ %$.
=¨ #. ¨ ~
}. (-_- LSJ)
<>¨ @\ _$#. $®¨ Î ~ #. ®>
Ã#¨
> . + "
~ _#\%.
< ¨
> # \ .
($
?)¨ ~ ·< <#$_%.
YZ @[ YZ @[
"_¨ }#. ¡#$¨
> = .
"\} }¨ ·
. @##\"¨
> $.
"#¨
> Ê=
. @=¨
> º.
"
_¨ "=$. ¨ ~ } .
"\##¨ _#> > @Ë @#
¬¨ ~ _#>
<%
Õ. (-%?).
"=¨ @> $ }##, õ
¨
> Ê
}## _%
%
$. .
" (i.e. "$)¨
> <- @ <¨ ~
% }#> ý
¯
.
.
"<#%¨
. @¨
> ·< $.
"¨
> #. ¡#\¨ <_$# , @

"#
¨ º <
<$ }##

# .
º.
¨ ~ }#> ý ý =¯ ý
"}=#¨ @> _$#, ¡
\
.
(123v)
+
> ·=
^ =¨
.
. @¨ (124r)
"#\}.
"%$¨ · # # ¬. û%¨ º.
<
+
¯ º$ @¨ #$ _ #.
>
}##%. ¡#$_¨ ·= ^.
266
YZ @[ " \#}¨ ~ }#.

=¨
> }. ## ¨
$#. (i.e.
¯#)

<¨
> @=.
YZ @[ # (124v) =¨ \

=^.
Ð<<¨ <_$# = ¨ > "
.
"
.
¨

$.
¨ Ê
\ ý
>
. \
¨ "
$.
Ä (i.e. $)¨ ~
_#. ¨
> }".
¨ ~ # ,
+ ~ =¨
> " ý
>
´.
> #=.
#
¨
> . #¨
> .
¨
> ®$=.
YZ @[ $ ¨
> $.
=\¨
#. ¨
> % (i.e. $) Ä<
=®$¨ ¿ "
.
> ®.
=$¨
> #. ¨ <$.
=¨ } "
. ##

¬¨ ®## (#-)
= $¨
> <#%. ¨
^ "#
> \.
=¨ ~ =". # %
¨ @Ë
=#¨ " $ Ä<
> <- #

´ , Ê
. %
$%
= #$¨ $. <_¨ ¿
.
=#$¨ ~ <> (i.e. ·<) }#,
%¨ \.

+ _ ¤ $%
¨ ·=#.
·= .
¨ ¾
’ ¹
% Á
%
< º$, =’ _
YZ @[
=^

> \. ~ +
¿¨
> #. >
^ _

¨
> . \ º .
$¨
> #}. ¨
> #$.
#
¨ (i.e. Ä#-)
> " $. £
¨
> #
.
Á ¨
> <_. $¨ ¿
@>
¨
·=. #´.
Á\#¨
> <\#. <$
#$¨
> <.
+
}## _%
#$¨
$.
#
. \%¨ _#$.
Á¨
> #. =$¨

$.
Á#=¨
> <#=. ¨ Á
"# ý #
<$
+ <.
^ ¸
.
Á#=¨
> <#=. %$¨ ~ ¬%.
#}%$¨
\ º
$.
YZ < @[> <>
<#¨ ~ @ |"$,

= ¨
> #. +
. (cf. s.v. }^)
> ¿¨ ~ %
. ¨
> \#.
$
¨
>
. <#%¨
> = $.
=> ’ |$¨
> (125r) $¨ =#\ (= #$ LSJ)
Ê. (Ú- cod.) Ä< $.
($ Gal.)¨

¬. #=$¨ @
.
267
YZ @[ <> ^ ¨ Á
$ . (cf. s.v.
)
#%$¨ }. (125v) "#¨

# $¨ "$ Ä< =#, <$ - #

^ _"#.
+ #. (cf. s.v. " )

\¨ $.
#%
¨
> = .
¨ Á $
.
(=\ Dsc.) ( Suda)¨
.
#} (#}= LSJ)¨ ý }#> #¨
> <¬<.
$
ý ¡
\ \. ¬%¨ %$.
<#> $¨
> %\. =¨ <<$.
#< (cf. scholia recentiora Tzetzae #$#%
¨
>
$.
in Aristophanem, sch plut verse 210: <¨ ~
<<.
#<<)¨ ~ #.
¨ ~ >
¯ $.
#%
¨ " ý
> <#-
#. YZ @[
#"¨ @>

}## =$´¨ ý $ #. (cf. Paul.
}#\. Aeg. 3.18.4.)
#"%
$¨
> #$". ¥¨
>
_.
#¬
(i.e. µ-)¨ µ$ #
¯¨
> <<. (cf.
(# $ cod.) }<$. Tzetzes Chil. 7.119, 183: $<)
#¨ Á ®#$
^ #¬
.

% =<
\%¨
> \#.
+ @# ¥. #$ õ<">\¨
> =.
µ"
¨ \ > @> (cf. Gal. 13, 270)
#$´, $
+ @ ¶<<$. ¬¨ º<>}.
#=$ ¨
_#. ¨ ~ @
> "#"$.
#\= (i.e. #\=)¨ ~
^ $
¨ ¿
> *#>, @Ë
^. }<>$
´,
+
#
$¨ ¾"_ (¾"<_ Dsc.) # .
Ù
}\ @ ##

#
. [] <YZ @[ >>
#<%¨
> · . $¨
> ·< $.
=¤
$_¨ ~ # .
YZ @[ <>
\# |
¨
> > |=¬,
+ YZ @[ @
Û @ °
> (i.e.
>) ¾}##¨ }#

$.
# . Û_¨
> #=.
¨ $
. Û ¬% (- cod.)¨

> Û.
¨ $ > ¾#$¨ ¾$.
\%

%. ¾> Ç¨ ~ #.
#=¨
> ~#. ¾ \#¨
>
\#.
¨ }#, Î
}#.
#
$¨
> >
# YZ @[
¹#%
’ Û @ \ $¨
<#$.
$, _
Á

. $¨
> Û.
$¨
> #"
. (cf. Dsc. #
¨ ~ }#>
^ .
3,134) #¬¨
> <<.
%
¨
>
. =¨ "
.
(?)¨
> #

^ #¨
> #"_.
#" @> _^. # ¨ > }
>

268
_% #$% . _¨

> $.

¨
> <=.

$¨
®.

}##¨
>
. \ #¨
> #
.

#¨ (126r)
> Ü \#, $¨
> $.
_=+ ¬ Ú \
#. ##¨ #\<

$¨ ~ "" %
. @ Ú > #$".
\¨ @ #=´ ¨

<<.
Ê =´.
=¨
> #
=.

¨ %$. $%¨ ¿
@> $´
=¨ ¿
. Î,
+
¤ ¾¤ =.
$¨
.
_¨ @ =, "%
¨ ~ #=%. %
$.
$
¨ $. ¨
> \#.
%

¨
> %
. }\#¨
.

$¨ º
$¨ <>}$¨
> Ê %
^ ¾
\
¯
# ¨ <#_. }#¯.
$ (-\ supra lin.)¨ º\. ¨
"#\}.
#<¨
> #. "¨
> .
#¨ ¿ "
. ##¨
> ##.
}#¨
> "_. ¨ ( cod.) @> #
³
#$=³ [Ê# ], @ +
³ ¾³
YZ @[ <> $%.
º¨

}##.
¨ @Ë
³ ¾³ =
,
³
º^¨
> . + _ø Ê# .
º¨
> ¡#\.
¨ _% º$ Ú .
º$ ® %¨
> > . $}<¨ }
> _% =

¤ }#¬.
YZ @[ <> $¨
> .
%¨
> ®. (cf. s.v. )
}
¨ . YZ @[ < >
_¯ (_
¬?)¨

$.
¨
> #
> ·<,
¨
> Á\#. <$
+ }<.
%$¨ @
.
<[<]=¨
>

=.
}¨

$.
##¨ >
" ##.

\¨
>
¯=.
$¨

\}.
$#}¨ ¿ "
.
_od$%¨
=$ .
$¨ @> $
_ \¨
*## \ (*#-
_ $
Î ·= . \?)

}#¨
> ·< $.
%<#(127r)
¨
=$ @>
\¨
> ·<
". Î "#$´.
#¨ ~ #".
<<%¨
> #.
<¨ ¾> @
¯ ¥$ "-
_¨ > }
> @>
. _$´.
$¨

¯ º ·=.
_$¨ =¬.
}
Ù ¨ _% }## -
¨ Á
.
_
@\
.
=#¨
> ¾
. (¾? cf.
}
·<¨
> ¡#\. LANGKAVEL 29,1)
(126v) ¨ " #%$.
269
$}##¨ $ Ä< _$

¨ @ #
³ $Õ.
}#
. (cf. s.v. }#
$) _¨ %$.
_#=¨
> _#=.
YZ @[ <+> _%¨
> # .
Ê
(Ê
- cod.)¨
> _"#¨ @> => \# ,

Ä<
}##.
+
<<#.
Ê ¨ ¿ "
. _#> \¨ ~ # <
¹}¨
>
. __#.
YZ @[ <> YZ @[ <

}^¨ ~ >
. (cf. s.v.
®\# (i.e. ®##)¨ "
_
<#) \ = ®##.
}##$ ¨ @ .
YZ @[ <>
YZ @[ <> ¨
> "#.
_= ¨
> _$#.
Text 14
On contraceptives, inc. ^+
@ (f. 127v)
# "

$
#¯ ¨ ## + " }= $ .
ý $ ($?) > }##
,
$
>
.
Text 18
_` / V/ Y@
/ @[ @+ (ff. 134r–137r)

^ "$ ¿ ~ #< # ¨ ¬, ®_¤

¬¨

% ¡
$ _ =
¯ %¯ \
_%\ > ¡
¤
·##%

%
·

. + < ¤
^ "$

©# =’ ©# >
#
¯ %¯
<$
,2 + ý >
¯ ®_¯

% ý >
¯
¯ > ¡
¤ _ ý ©#% "#\

¬=.
(134v) ¢ + ®_¤ =
$
¯ >
¤
^

@\# Ê< $ ~ >
>
=%, @'

\

} <
¯ , ¤
\ $ø ý
³
@

=\

$,
³ +
>
2

<$
] @<$
cod.
supra @- addidit
270
_

~^ @$, ø +
> ¤ #\

=% @$.
¢ +
¤
^ "$

^
% + û
_ Á
û
>
¹
%
<$ =
}
, ##’ ©# ’ ©# @# = @

$, " " (Ps. 67:14) < = $, Ê
\
}
\% ¬

< \%
¤ ·<
} <
#.
¬ + X"
!" (Rom. 8:8).
ÂÁ
#
¯ > } @ $ ¡
_

\ Î, Û

_.
<

}(135r)¬

$%
^ = $ }%
>
Õ \
_.
<
@=^
\}
= Ê®#
$_
_$
_

#
^
}

\, +
¾}=#
Û

$% ®_
>

##
^ ^ ^
> }
¯ #=¯
Î Û
%¯ Ê % < \=
~%\%
¯
%, ##’ Ü

%=\
= < <

^ ,

=
=%$ <
>
^ #< ^ $%
> <

>
~ }= _, ##¬#
^
_
Ê+

% =’ ©

$
=\
®_
_ _
%,

¯ $ <#
¤

%
_$
< . >
% Ú @
^ ^
> }
> @
#\<
#<,
| ® <
{ X
"
!
" "$ < "
¯
= (Gen. 6:3).
(135v) ¬ ?)" + "$

!
" ?)"
+ (1 Cor. 2:14) Ê
%$
Ú \
\#
<_, ¬
\$
Ê+
¯
@
#¯ ^ = ,
@®<
¤
=%
@} <
¨ }#
$ø +
³
}Î
¾# =$% =

,
= $
¤ Ê< $ #
¯ >
^
,
=#®
= Ê+
¯ $
,
>
#\ \
^ \
@=#
. ¹
% + "$ <%<¯ _

<^

> ^,
= _=\
,
$

= $% <
%, Ê}’ { ®_¤
¯ ¹# *
©# >

@ # .
^
+ _ Ê>
^ Ê#^

_

Ú
$ }#^
®_
= #¬

. < Û

^

^ *<$ ·$

_
%
^, (136r) ©= + @
= @
– <
= >
> #$
ý _ @
%_ $ø =#$® ý ®_¯ ¬ ý
=
$
ý
¤ @<
– ##’ +
ý ý
$% = ,

+ Û< Ê }$
. =

"=
"=
^
= % ^. + < @

@

> ¾<^ } "
{
<
@ < "" $ #= (Lk.
24:45), ##’ + ·##% <\% ^
^
\_
.
% ÷

% ~
# }¬
, ?)"<
, #\<%,

271
)" $
!
' = @" +

©" ° >

"> " + " X" (1 Cor. 2:14).
±
" ! "

",
~
" @"
+
(Rom. 8:14).
ÂÁ +

_^

¤
¤ @Õ\ %¤ ’ ©#

$
Î Î, $ Ú
Î. < ¡

=$
®_
@
#
^ K$
^. ^ ¡

(136v) Ê+
¯ <
^,
¤
¬
$
<$,
> _ #

¯ $, = $ø ^

\#
@
¯ <¯, _³ #\
Õ
> ^ #^ }%
> #>

> <
,
³ ¬
= #
% _%$
$ ®_ >
¯
^
= $ ©#
^
<$
. >

<%$
## #^
Ê>
%
%.

> = < @_ > = %$
^

¯
$ %
¤
< @ =
Û
% = %$ }$ #"
¯ \
^ \
Ê % < \
¯
^

%.
$
¤ =
^
$ø }%
\Õ

Ê+ = < <

^

> #< @ \´ @#$ ^
<%<¯

#< = @ = $ @ <

<$

= Ã# } = ~ >

}=\<<
¨ ; { < ² * * (137r) + ; { < #
>

(Mt. 2:13–14): } +, Ú
> "$ @
#>
Î #<´ }>
¤
, Ã# +, Ú
¤ < #
¤ = $
>
¤ }
^ ^.
Text 19
On the three stages of spiritual life, inc. V/ j` >
/ (ff. 137r–138v)

@
\

# " %¨
=
¬, }%

¬,
¤
# ¨ \ @

<%<, +
\%, +

# $%. <

%

_ ~

¤
²
> #$ <$
@ "
@

"

"
(Eph. 4:13).
<^ =
¤
Ä > < Á <\% @
+

¯ =
¯ }¯
^ _Ç^ = (1 Cor. 15:49), #
%
# $ }$
^ ^ =
^

\ *<$ (Col. 3:9–10). < +
>
¯ ¹#,
¯
¯
, }<¤
$ @ = > =
> #< , @

# # <\
\# , > +
>
#=
¤
Ã#
¯ *
$,
>
Ä= _

º=¯
^

> (137v)
@
>
^
$ (Mt. 23:26)
% @=
> #^

(2 Cor. 7:1) ¹
%
> ¿
^ #< "# @
Î
> }$
$ = =\ <<
Î "#

% < ^.
\# +
Î %=¯ @
%
Î
¯ ¬ %
272

<%
> $= *
$
%=¯
#
"}¯
Î
¯
% ¹
}
# =¯
>
=
% . ~
^
}= ## <% ¬ %
" @}
, }

#
% <$% =,
@ =
Î
> = $ (Heb. 11:33–34), @<\
_>
Ú $
·## $
(Job 1:1)
Ê¯
Ë
>

.
¢ + }%
¤
@ Á <% ®
% @
$
=
\ @

<
Û
%, = %$
#<%
¯
$ %

$
^ *<$
. < + =
^ > (138r)
^
> <\
^ = $,
¾}=#
¯ $ #®,

^ #< <\ =’ Ê®#

%
¯ < %.
\# + ~

#<
¯ }$
}
Û
%, @$<%
= $%
=%$% <
% #®

$%
¯ "# $

. ~
^
}=
^ > @<$ ·
> (2 Kgs
2:11) @_

Ç

, Ú $
·## "$

\
>
>
, #
$ Ê %
¯
^
< <Ë
%.
¢
¤ +
# >

Ä

% @
$
\
#$ @#=
% ²
^. +

>

> \
^
> Ê ®,
>
·%
< \=
,
Î
´
}%
#
"=
^ ^ @ ¯ (1 Cor. 2:3)
^
.
< +
> #
> =
¤

% ^
$ #<%

(138v) #= $,
# % <
% "#

#<%
¯ = $ <}¯.
\# +
>
<%<¯
> ¹
%
# \
}
¬
^ ^,
> }$ ¡
> # ¬

$
^
, }> = #< @#$ <#
^
Î #<´
¯ }$
¯ = #<$.
Text 29
@[ { @[ (scil. John Chrysostom) inc. |
Z Y (ff. 189v–190v)
For this text, see Chapter 5.
273
Text 30
}
@[ ~@+ @+ @[ _` @+ ";/ ` ` ;/
j@+ @/ (ff. 190v–192v)
a. (f. 191r l. 2–6) £ +

^ ^ $ ©

$%

>
= >

% %\, =

@
/

cod./,
^

’ $ < ,
’ ·## ©

_ ý
<_ ý
@<
# ® <$
,
%\.
b. (ff. 191r l. 7–192v l. 7) £ +
¯ %$ # % #\< ©
~ = @
+
,
+ <=.
>
^
¾

% @

Ê’
^ # <\%

. ©
+

> = , @
¤
= @_ =
¯ $ $
^ =’ ¦ Ç$% @
Ê+
<, ©# @ ¡
Î ##"Ë
> ¿ =
\#< ·

¨ <=> +
, @\<
^ > · 3
$,

> <=>
$ @
<=, < > #\<
. ·}%
$

=
^
¾
,
> +
¤ $,
> +
¤ (191v) @\<
^ = ^
^
,
> +
Ê
, ¤ #^

¬, Á>
Ã< ^,
> + ## } @ < $.
+
¤ ¡
\
\ %

~ = ,
+
¤ ¡
\

@
#\<
.
³ = #¬
\
_
<\
¤ @\< .
¤ + ÷ _

}#=%$
³ Õ %³ #¬% ¨
##_= @
# ""

\## ¨ %
"¬= ¨ <<\# @\
}#¨ >

%
> >
@<
\ 4

\%
¬¨ }¬
® ¨

\
’

< <
¨
\#
> < ¯ Ê
^
Á> Ê+ % ¨ \# ¡
^

>

*<$ _(192r) ®
¤
^ *<$
"
$
<\ @%¬
, ¹
% Á = ^ <#
¯ Ê
^ "# $

¬
.
$

< $ _

< <
=
¬
¤
> $

@
#
^

}¬ ,
> Ü
¯ =¬
^ @ ! Ê<= >
< =,
> ^
¯ _
@"$ ,
$ #> ##’ ý
> $

^ }¯
>
¯ $ @
¯ > @ ¼

’ $

" "%\% Ê
^ #¬®
; ¹
% < @
~
^ $ #<
<=

<\

##
}#
¤ \
$. @ + ~ *
%#>
$
¯
^ = ^ < ¬

= ý =%$ $ ý ©#%

$%, ¯# (192v)
÷ ©

$
_ Ú
_ _ , ##' Ú =\

, Ð
,
>
^ = ^
}¬%. ~ + = >
3
· ]
cod.
4
cod.
274

Î #< ·## > Û. $ ÷ @

¤ Ê
^ $
^ + = ^ @ #

} , ¹
% ~
^ $
#<.
Text 31
@[ { @[ (scil. Mark Eugenikos) @
Y
@+*
@ ?/ ~ (ff. 192v–193r)

@
"= @
(Mt. 22:13)

> <¬

¯
<%$ >
= $ <
$ ¤ "#= ¨ # (Mk. 9:48)
"#

¤ ¤
¯ > ##^
= \
Î ""´

= @<#= ¨

@®<\
¯ = >
>
#$ <¨ ^ } <<+
@ \ Ê> =^
>
= ¨ "<> ¾

% (Mt. loc.cit.)
_ ¬<
(193r) }= <<\
_Õ
^

. < ~ = >

@ (1 Cor. 15:28; Eph. 1:23),
@ ^ = ^ + ·## # $

#¤ $ , $ + ¯ }Õ\ # @
®_¯

^
.
Text 32
Problem, inc. @ / Y*
(f. 193r–v)
|$ \_
~ = > o#%#\

¤ \
^

#¬= =%
@ *
$ ¡
o

¤ %¤
%¨5
µ¨
£ #¯= \ #\< ; # @ #¯= ¿. = Î + ©

= Ú
<Ë > , Ú $ #6 @#<$= (Is. 40:15); o
@
> \"#
\< =
¯ = $ %;
^ }¬

#\<
¨ ° ) < !
* * +
¯
"
’ * ³+ X
(Is. 40:22). \ ®##7 @
¯ , ý @
#_%
$% \}= ; = +
> +
’ }#
}
= Î ’
¤ ¡
>
, (193) + ~
.

+
¯ = $ $ >
¤
%¤ ¾#=¬
,
Á

= Î #,
>
}
. = + >"

` !" !"
(Ps. 5:7). _ ~
> > Ú " # =
,
¯
<¯ <
, %#¬%, _%, %$ ¬ %
5
Ð
% cod.
6
Ú $ #] Ú # cod.
7
®_ cod.
275
@#¬
,8
^
@
= Î, ®_¤ %= $ ’ *
$,
¯ = $
%¯ ¡$% ¡
¤ _%$.
Text 33
{Z j/ Z *@
$@ @ (ff. 193v–194v)
£
,
, = ¯
,
º
% · _
#<.
%
#<,

< ,

¤ #
¯ ®_¯, ¤ $Õ.
Â }\%
@"#

^ "

,
}\%
¤ @$= , }\%
¤ $,

\<%

_, @\, #_, #.
(194r) _ Ê\
¤ #,
¤
.
"
=’ \,
, "## "\#
% #< ,
< = = $
.
%# $ "= =\# , %= .
®_¯
" , Ð%
> ^ ,
>
% , @$#%
> ^.
@\\
¤ #
#¤
¯ %},
@\ º>
¯ *
$ .
@# , }¬
> #^

¯ ®_¯ ,
,
_$

> = ^ =\

\

\

# .
µ> *<¤ _
, ²

,
=#"\% _¬, #¤ _ \%,
>
%
}<

\%,

> ²
> ¬
^
>

<#

}¬
>
\}
¨
¤
$
@#\(194v),
$
> > _ ^#
> ¹
%
,

$%.
"#
® @
_

¤ _
@}#\%

¤
$#®
¤ ¤ \ \_
\#,
@
Î
\# + *<¤

@\ @ >
^ %$,
©% Ê #<
¤ @¤

<#% ^
> #
= ,
^

.
8

cod.
276
Text 35
Sayings by Maximos, Demosthenes, et al. (ff. 195v–196r)
[1.] @[ ~@+ >@+

¯ ®_¯¨ #<, =^
@=$.
> =>
¯ ®_¯ <Õ _#$%
> @=
>
¯ @<
$ø
Ñ
> #<
>
¯ = % $ø
Ò%·
> }
^ ^
^
Ó
.
[2.] @[ |#@$*@+/¨ \# + * =
^ "$ =
, @
$´
Ê
> = $
³¨9 _¤ +
<= · @<_ +
#,
¤ <=¤ "##\ @#$, }\ ’ ©
~ = >
< $%.
[3.] @[ { @[¨ `
+ <,

¯ _¤ + , \ ’
$.
[4.] @[ { @[¨ > < ÷ Ñ

¤ Ó }¤10
^11 }

ò
<Ó<
.
[5.] @[ { @[¨ ¤ _Ñ
%, ·
Ô
% +
< Ò=

×
%.
[6.] @[ { @[¨ £
+ }\

$, ^ + < =

$.
[7.] (196r) @[ { @[¨ ¶Ô <
^

×
%,
@=Ò#
Ô

#Ô
%.
[8.] @ @+¨ "
#¯%
¬, @<Ë \ Ú < Ä¨12 ’ @#
_Õ.
[9.] Ì < \
^ #
_, @ } @"# Û
% ¾
¨
< #"
=\% #

}\ <\,
_ ©

_
$Õ.
[10.]
@ *@+/¨ Ì @

> Ê
=
¤ , Ú
> ¤
Ê
= .
Text 38
A gnomology derived from Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike
(ff. 197r–199v)
1) [272–276]
Â¹
% +
¯ =^ ®_¯
_
,
=¬, ^,
^ <# =.
9

³] =$ cod.
10
}¤] }¤ cod.
11

^]
cod.
12
Ä] Ä_ cod.
277
"#
=, *
$ ·_ ,
"#$% $% @"¬

#\

$< .
2) [780–782 + 956–957]
|##’ }## , # ,

_ = $,

¤ #

¤
@#\
@
<$ } @"¯
> $.
##’
\, Ú , @
Î "$´,
#^
, "$#
,
$.
3) [1157–60; 1162–67]
$ <¤ ##¬, û}, _

,
, %, ", __,
¡#"#\}, *", _$
% <\ ·#
# "_$%,
} , ## ·
,
> % @$_,

> "#\} Ú,
##
¬
,
"},
_¨
@"

¤ #

º_ $,
Ú

> @#\}
"® # }ø,
¤ ,
# , ©= @=<¬=
< ¯
û
#\ _
$ .
4) [1327–28]
"
_¤ #¬= , + =
\%
< #%# =
=.
5) [1403–09]
ÿ ¿ ÷ ### Ë
Î
¬=
~ \< @ #=Î >
> £#\% }
«
· # # <$< "_ ,
# Ð

> =#\
.»
~ ’ > @} \
« # ô}" £
#»,

^
’ Ë @\ ~
#^
Ù%.
6) [2078–79]
|

¬ @
¯
¯ Ê\#,

¤ ## @

_%
%.
7) [2529–32]
ÿ ·
> _

"",

¤ }#$ ·
%

¤ }####$
¿ ¤ ##<#% =#%
}# ¨
> < #> @ } % Ã @ .
8) [2600–2607]
|##’
\, Ú ,
_
^ "$
278
# # <\, \

$
¤ } _
> $¨
< º û }$ =
#$

> "#\}
$ }\#
}= @}

> #> ^

_ #,
> >
^ "$
}\
>
_ \.
9) [2693–2695]
ÿ · <
\
$
û = = }#^
¤
$

¯ }####$.
10) [2792–2796]
> < = ^

} #
$ _ =
¾#\ >
¯ ;
= ^ <##¤ _ $ }$,
# $, $} Ê
\ ,
^, ="", }
=.
11) [2819–2820]
Â¹
% ##
@<

> \,
¹
% @#$ #

=% }\.
12) [2846–2848]
ÿ ·
¯
¯
> _¯ %
,
##< ¬, =< ¬, ##, ##=, =¨
<

@
.
13) [2873–2877]
|##

> =\
^ _$,
##

$%

%¨
^
# û< @ "=%
,
^
Û##,
^

#\
©#% @= }>
_ .
14) [2925–2926]
ÿ ·

®_¯ + =

> "$# , =# _
%.
15) [2959–2960]
|##
¤ ·_ _
¯
^ = ^ $
_ << ¤ ·
#\<.
16) [2980–2982]
Â¹
% ¿ "¤ = "#\,
©
>
¤ \" $
\_ ,
+ #" %, +

\ .
279
17) [3024–3025]
|##’ <

=,
## "$
$
"\#

$
.
18) [3062–3063]
Â¹
% @\

$,

^= ’ Ü

¬ .
19) [3101–3104]
Â¹
%
< _ <$ \#
}$# ¿ =

\
@}\#

@_= Ú $ <¯
.
< _

^
}#=.
20) [3497–3515]
²+
,
,
# , ## ,

% #,
% º$,
¡#\#, º®\#,

_\%,
# %
_ $
,

%
%,

<<
_ .
+ =##
, <
%
@ "$´,
+
} $
%
@< $%.
#=
> #
,
> #> # ,
<# $< ·}%, ## @
$ ,
"
> ,

> <.
< =\#<
@<
$
<
< }

=¬ .
##
> ##$_ Ú _ } ,
=

¤ ,
"%_ ,
__ , # , $%.
#¯
> ® , Ú , =,
Ú ·
>
Ü #= ¨
$ <

#$= *# ;
$ <
¤ Ê $_ _ } < ;
Text 41
Inc. @
@[ $@[ (ff. 206v l. 2–207v)
later hand has attributed the text to Mark Eugenikos: ° ~ } }

_.

+ < @
^ = ^
>
> ^
> Ã<

¤
^
%
¯ }%¤ ##’ ##
@

^ Á^,
< _

^

.
’ \ +
# =

_ =
¤ ~=
$

>
¯ $
% "#

\% û
¤ @
\
280
¡
Ä ¡
\, ý #\ ¤ < ®>.13 | " ©" @" ´ ¨

(Prov. 22:28), <

Á ##^
##
> ^
> Ã<
^ = ^
> @
+ @
^,
+ ##

>
¯ $ #<¨ @
^
> + @

> ^
> Ã<,
+
^ Á^ .
@
*<$´ %Î \´
Î @ \´ @
^

,

\
@
¯ $
^
¨ <
= ~ Á> ¤
Á @
³
, ##’ @
, =
, @
^
> >

, }
+ ’ Á^ ##¬
14 @
*<$ }¬

#.15
(207r)
$
$
> ^
> Ã<

@

^ Á^¨ ¤
¤
¤ @ $
^ Á^ @
^ Á^ _ .
Ù
¤ @
@

¯ Ê %
^ <$
¨ \

}
^ , \® _<$, _
Ê %

^ Á^¨
, $

\%, =, @
> ’ Á^
>
^
> Ã< @ =, = \, ’ $ + "
¹
% ¬% @
> + @ =, ’ Á^ +
$ _< =¨
>
< #< @}’ ¡
´ $¨ _ ~
¤
¤ #\
¤ $
#" . % ¹
%
> ^
> Ã< } @
>
@ = ~#<\%. #\<
+ @
>
>

^ ¿ Á^¨

¤ < Á^ #\<

¤ Ú

¨ ¤
¤ @
^¨
^

} @
>
^ Á^
$ #% ©
~
> Á> < ¬,
>
> ^
> Ã< @ . ¹
% $% ¨ (207v)
> ^
> Ã<
@
@
^ @
, © @
~
¬. +
^ <%
\% ¿

¤ Û =

^
. < Á^,
¤ >
>
\

$ ¬ .
\%
> ^
> Ã< @
^
>
< @ \=, #\< +
> ¿
^ Á^, Ú } ~

#¨ µ"16 ° < <

}
X`` °
(Gal. 4:6).17 @
^ Á^ +
> ¿ #\< , Ú <, ·
@
^ Á^ #\< _$

,
= < . @
¯ $ +
^ Á^
~ \<
^
} ##, © ¿ #"¤18

@
$ $%.19
## #$ @
}#\¨ < } ©

> ^
> Ã<, “ < _
> ¿ ~ Á>, @ =

^
,” @
^
> #¬, @
¯ = Ç¯ $.
·}% < Ã _%
$% }
% ¬
% @
^
>
¯#= ,
> + <
,
> + @
.
13
Cf. Mark Eug. Testimonia spiritum sanctum ex patre procedere probantia 77; Cyril. Alex.
Ep. ad Ioannem Antiochenum, PG 77, 180D.
14
##¬
cod.
15
Cf. Mark Eug. Testimonia spiritum sanctum ex patre procedere probantia 78; Athan.
Sermo contra latinos; PG 28, 285.
16
@
# cod.
17
Cf. Acta Graecorum concilii Florentini II, 6, 342 (~ }\).
18
#" cod.
19
Cf. Acta Graecorum concilii Florentini II, 7, 379 (~ }\).
281
Text 48
A florilegium, inc. *>@/ #$/ (f. 238r–247r)
title was added by a later hand: _(¤)

\#
#}"

}
#<.
[1.] |#Ò @%

= Ó,

% @= @ ¾#$< _ @
,
}¨ “+ @ û "# .”
[2.] |#Ò @%
= “^
= _ ;” }¨ “@

}Ó#%
$.”
[3.]
> @%
¬
}#} ©
<¯ ý =# # $ _ ,
¿ ¨ “ <¯, < =# @
¯ <¯ @
$.”
[4.] |#Ò @%
= $,
$ ## = ,
>
\ ¶$# ý |

\#
> #, }¨ “

> #, @ ~ +
¤

^ < ¯, ~ +
#
^ # < \= .”
[5.] |#Ò Ë <Ò @ Ó=´ å }¨ “_ Ó=
+
} .” ~ + }#×} }¨ “Ï "# ^,
#<^
Ô_ ý }
Ó=, % ¤ Ô
_^ Á }Ò .”
[6.]
> @%
=
$ @
}Ó# }· “Ó ®_¤ @ å ^.”
[7.] |_ ~ =
} ¿ }Ó# _ ## · ý

## > Ó.
[8.] |#Ò }¨ “· @
·_ = ý =% .”
[9.] (238v) Í + @Ó
, }Ô#

#Ò
, + <¤> Ñ=,
#Ñ"
@
ò· ~Ó% < @
> Ô
_ò #×<
¤ = × ×
<=>
}Ó#% ¤ #" .
[10.] |$ @%
=

+
< =
@
@ ·##´
#%,
+
, }¨ “· <
Á
^

=
¬
, ##’ < .”
[11.] |Ô
ò @ }#Óø ¹
@_=> < × ¤ @}ÑÕ·
<
> @_=×, ##
¤ }#Ó.
[12.] Á @}
Ô_ =Ñ Á }
Ò%, <Ñ# ^ Ñ<.
[13.] |

\# ¿ ¨ “~ ¤ Ë % + #\< = ¿ .
[14.] |

\# }¨ ~ @ ´20 =¬ <}% #¬ _
@
_ =#
$´
$ _\

¯ > ©#.
[15.] |_Ó ~
µ Ó% "# = Ñ
>

|=Ó _× , }¨ “ý
³ Ñ ×= ý
^ =Ñ
·} # .”
[16.] (239r) |_ ~ = @%
= $
$ Á ·=%

#^
, }· “©
×

# , ##
##

<=.”
[17.] |> _
¤ @ #×< <%Ó
.
20
@ ´] @´ cod.
282
[18.] |Ñ · ¤ @$ #^

.
[19.] |Ñ
+
> _¯, · + .
[20.] |#Ò ~ "# ^ å

<
% "
%

Ó_ }¨ “¤

Ó_ "Ñ
, ##’
<×
.”
[21.] |#Ò Ë

å
Ê> <> }= × }¨ “
×"
Ê> #Ô }= × .”
[22.] |#Ò å <^ ##%Ò }· “ + >

,
#Ñ, + >
Ô, ¤ "Ñ .”
[23.] \#

Á \ ## ý #$.
[24.] # ## >
^ #\<
ý
¨ < ·
#\=
_=\
ý # _=\
.
[25.] #Ò }×
> Ñ . ^ <Ñ @
~ ·_%.
[26.] (239v) "$% @$
©

@_
%
·=% }$#.
[27.] Ò#
#Ó= "# , ý ¯ #×<.
[28.] \#

^
_ =$,
¯ = $ <
Ñ".
[29.] ¯ Ó ~^ Ô
Ô
= Ñ
.
[30.] #Ô%
¤ Ó Á > ·# # < ¿.
[31.] = ^ · "_Ô#<.
[32.] "^ ~ + @
_Ë Á×, ~ +
_Ë å# =<
Ò.
[33.] Ô, < × <¤ }Ò .
[34.] ¤
Î ´ \
¤
¯ ®_¯ }$ @}$ .
[35.] #¤
}¨ “> + , \< + #.”
[36.] } ¬
¤ û}¨
> + < => \#
,
> + Ê®$ <.

[37.] <\
¤ + º$
¯ $ } ¿ Ñ,
+
<# .
[38.] $
´ }
¨ “
$ \< < <;” ¿ ¨ “@#<¤

^ ^,
> #
&
.”
[39.] =\ } ©
Á21 #
> ^ ^
.
[40.] (240r) }¨ “
# #\ ý
³ <#
Õ _.”
[41.] =\ @ $´ >
> ## ##^
}¨ “
^

@} © ## ,
^
@## .”
[42.] > ©

¤ } ³22 } .
[43.] =\ @%
= $,
$ # @ "$´, }¨“#= }$#% @
_$.”
[44.] _$ = ¤ " , ## $, @ “ ¿,

>
}¬
,
Ó
Ò
@^.”
[45.] =\ @%
= Ê
“
¯ º
¯ <Ò;” }¨ “
>
<
> #Ò #$ #.”
[46.] <\ ~ > }#}
Ô# @Ñ#
<
> Ó%
¹
%\.
21

cod.
22
cod.
283
[47.] <\ = Ñ ×# <Ñ# Ô# _ }· “# Ó

Ô#, ¤ ×# @Ò#=Õ.”

[48.] × #^
· }¬ % }#+
¯.
[49.]
+ , @#\< +
_¬.
[50.]
_$ø }$# Ê û#, @ +
_$ø
% @
##
×
.
[51.] õ

=% _ ~ >
#= , ##Î =

#

·=%, _ ## _#
’ ##¬#% _ .
[52.] (240v) õ "#
,
# ^

$

_ $ ^
@
$.
[53.] ´ ¤ "
#<¬ }$ @ .

[54.] ##
$ $< $
> =¤
Õ.
[55.] õ$
+ }¯ ®% ¤ _% # # ¢#\
@<< ¡
> @\=
Î ¨ “
\

^

> '=#
õ$ @\= @ }¯ @®¯.23
[56.] + Óø Ñ
o^ <¯, @ + "#Óø
^
_¯.
[57.] õ _¤

= =´ Î _ >
¬ ¨ !
< @ *
, 24

$ =¬.
[58.] õ
%

#" ##’
%

}\ .
[59.] %
= $
, Ê" ¾<$
, }¨ “+ < @
@$.”
[60.] ¬% # < ©
~

% _( ¨25 }Ô %, #Ò

_×.
[61.] ¬% ~
%Ç> }#} }^ %<Ñ} #Ò<

Î¨ “Ó×

¤ Ó,
¤ %<}ò%¨” “Â ^, ¿ , (241r) ## ×

¤ %<Ñ},

^
@<Ë
¤ Ñ%.”
[62.] Ñ# ~
µ =Ò

× # <
_Ó ~Ó
¿· “ < @ @ @ÒÕ ý å%®,
Ò_
, @ + }¤26 ý
Ò#, ò }Ó

· ¹
% @
¨ @ @ÒÕ Ò,
Ò_
· @ + #Ô ý
>, ò
Ò_ .”
[63.] ¢

% <
+ }$# ,
+ @_=
@#\<_ .
[64.] ¢ _ > < }$# \
=¬ .
[65.] ) <¤ _ ý #< #}\#.
[66.] ¢$

¤
¤ _ , ## ¤ @$ ¬

> < @
Î
#\ <\
.
[67.] ¢ Ó
_^ Ò @
,
_^ +
}Ô<.
[68.] Ô
+
#<% Á <Ó,
+ @Ó

ò
Á ##Ó.
23
@®¬ cod.
24
cod.
25
_$ cod.
26
}< cod.
284
[69.] #¯ ~ °#¬ @%

= $,
$ "

Û
%¨ “= , },
<\
<¨”
$ Ñ##
· “×·27 Ã
< _% ·”
$
_Ô

· “^·

% <
Ò_ ·”
$ _×

· “Ñ<·
< Ñ
%·”
$
}å

· “_×· ÊÓ < Ñ
.”
[70.] (241v)
# ÁÎ

¯, ¿ >
>
Á×· + ×
Ò## #Ò<
^
×,
^
·
$=·
+ ·, ¹
% · ¿
$=.
[71.] \#
\# ¿,
%
%
#\
.
[72.] > #
¨ + #
> .
[73.] + +
¤ @ #Ò´, }Ó# + Ó
@
_Óø Ó .
[74.] ¥
> }Ó#,
> Ó’28 ##
> #} #å
.29
[75.] ¥
}¨ “ Î Ñ<
ò
Ó
ò
<× ·
× <
>
^
Ñ
%.”
[76.] ¥
@%
= $,
$ #
<=, }¨ “
_$ .”
[77.] ¥
@%
= $,
$ @
< º¬
, }¨ “
>
<#
¯,
+ $%
Î #<´.”
[78.] ¸\% @%
= $,
$ ~ $%, }¨ “~
> + Ê<¬,
¤ + ®_¤
û,
¤ + } $
.
[79.] # $
_ }¨ “@ ##×<´
#Ò< ¤ @
ò .
< # Ó
#Ò< Û®
}Ò
.
[80.]

_$ _¬, ¤ }$%
Á @_=$.
[81.] #>
> ® ^ ©
#} #
#\<
, +
"#

.
[82.] (242r) # $} @

Î ¶#$, ©

, “ < ,
}$, _ .”
[83.]
=

^ ¾ $ ¨
> + < Ä
}$#,
> +
#
Ê"
,
> + =o
*

,
> +
@ #\<_ .
[84.] # $%, ## ¤ = .
[85.] $% _ <¯ Ê_ , =Ë < ¬ ý
ý

%.
[86.] µ% @%
= $, ’ ¦
$

^ <%
$_ @# %, ¿ ¨
“ "#\%

# +

%.”
[87.] µ% >
> #× #Ò<
¨ “·% Ù
,” ¿< >, “·%
Ó #Ñ.”
[88.] °
¬ ¤
$Õ
Î }$#´ , }"=Õ
> < \=
@_=.
[89.] ° _
@ Î
% <#
#"

.
[90.] °¤ } ^< _$ =¨ < >
<#
^
¿.
[91.] °¤ ¾ $Õ }$#´ _
¨ < Ú %.
[92.] ° } ¾ ÓÕ· ¤ <
Ô_
> Ò## ×
.
27
×] × Ó <
^ = ^·”
$ Ò<
· “
×· Gnom. Vat. 320.
28
cod.
29
#} #å
] #} #å
@#Ò< = Corpus Par. 5.55.
285
[93.] °¤ ¬
[< \=]
<<× <Ó< = Ú =Ò# , ## =Ò# Ú

< × <Ó
.
[94.] (242v) °+ }$# ^ @
Õ \_

\
}$#¨ # <
> + < \=
^
Ü @ $
<\< .
[95.] °¬
^ ~#$ø, ¬
}#<´ _ @
[ ].
[96.] °¤
_ ## ¨ · < @}$ .
[97.] >
<\
=

@
.
[98.] $ }¨ “ #> \30
#\< =, +
¬}
31 =.”
[99.] Î }#´ }
$¨ “ @ ## #\< ¾#$<, ##’ @ ¾#$<
##.”
[100.] > = ^ ~ }, =$ > Ê_¤ = ^.
[101.] , } ~ }#} -

#$%¨ ~ +
# _%#> Û
#Ó @ Ó´ Ò% · ~ , } }· “Ñ
# $· _%#> + < < Ò=, }#×} + .”
[102.] ,=$ @%
= ,
$ \<
Ê¯_
Î %
, “
^
,” }, “©

@ <= }Ô#
¤ Û®

Î.”
[103.] ,=$ @ =\ \ (243r) # @=

¤ %

\ ÷ }¨ “_ = Õ, <, Õ, ##’ = =³.”
[104.] #$´ _< ý _ + }\
^ =# ¹%
@_\
.
[105.] ## }" > ## }"
.
[106.] Âû
· ~#$, ¹
#^
_%
¯ _ ¬.
[107.] Âû
´ _% _#^ û
#Ô
_% #<^

¯
$.
[108.]
}#<Ô% "Ó ~ Ù# % Ê> <¯ \

%
}$ .
[109.] Â
> \ =
} _, ##
> ’ _
Ó Ò =
Û .
[110.] Â$ }¨ “~$ }
^ = @
$, ¹
% ~ #<.”
[111.]
@%
= $,
$ @
·
=, }¨ “
> =

.”
[112.] Â¹
=# > ¹%, ¹
$
®_¤
.
[113.] Â$ ~ ## ""#$
, }¨ “¤
³ "%
Î ##
Î
¬= .”
[114.] ÂÊ Ã#
> "$ ¬<< ·=% , û’ ·_
\#

_.
[115.] Â
"$ Ê ·# @ $.
[116.] Ì

Î ¾
¤ $=
,
> (243v) @ ºøÓ% @Ó

.
30
\ functions as a direct object here.
31
¬}
cod.
286
[117.] % @%

= $,
$ @
@ = <=
}^#, }¨
“<#.”
[118.] Â > < _
> .
[119.] <>
}#> #" "#

@
.
[120.] ÂÁ
=%, _

@<<\##%
,
>

.
[121.] =
$% \
# "#

##
$%.
[122.]
}#<Ô% #^
^· Ñ
< _%,
>
}=× _ .
[123.] $´ ~

% "$, _% }
$.
[124.] Ì
$
> = <%$
,
^

$
@
^
.
[125.] Â
’ ¾<¯ }# "#
.
[126.] .
=
=$
=_^ ## ¡

$}
$ ,
>
>
¾<³
> ¾< .
[127.] ÂÁ \
>
^
}\

% © = >

=%.
[128.] Â
> \ = _, ##
> _ .
[129.] ÂÁ ^ }
_ , ##^ \_
¨ (244r) Ê " <

©
¯ _ $¨ \= @< ¬, + \= "# ®_¬. Á + \

\_
} # } #.
[130.] Â \_
^ ^ }
^.
[131.] £ } @#"\ @$ $ <
} .
[132.] £
> ~ °
# }¨ “ \## , ¤ #\< ¨
_Ë <

< #=¬Õ.”
[133.] £=< }¬

Î
> “#$ @
,” }¨ “ <

#
+ \ #}\#,
+ <#\ "#" .”
[134.] £#
_ #

\
$
^
_ ¨ @ +
¯ <
%}, @ +
¯ <#
<¬, @ +
^ .
[135.] £#
% ~ }> Ë < +
%
¤ <¤ $
#
@ = _ $ ·
@=$
¹% $

“ ,” }¨ “ ¹
%
< Ð$
, ¹
%
<
@ $ .
[136.] £## }$#
$
##
#$ Á^
¨ +

}$ ¬
.
[137.] (244v) £= Ã
> +
_\% <% "¬=
,
> + _´

_ $
.
[138.] £#32 ~ ° ¬ =

<

¿ ¨ “¾®+
< .”
[139.] £

@
= @
@$ ¡
>
<%$ .
32
£ cod.
287
[140.] £ } } @

¤ }´.
[141.] £ _¤ @#}>
³ = $ø <$
.
[142.] £ =
^ #"
=> @ ¨ @%
= +
¤
$ ¿ ¨
“©
’ ¾#$< < #
¤ $.”
[143.] £ ©
$
+ ## "#}
^ ¬,
@\# _=¯ >
> =’ \ Ã
¨ _=Ò
+
>

Ðå
,
^
ò
^· ~ Ó ¿ “
^
, Ï "# ^¨
# Ó
Ô
% ò , # Ó ¿ @$ .”
[144.] £#
% # Ê
}¨ “#\< @ # #\<
= .”
[145.] ¬
}= < ©
¨ Û}
Ò} > <

× (245r)
@
·
Ò < _Ñ û < .
[146.] <$
#^

¤ @<

¯.
[147.] #% ¾
\, ©
$ _% @=
º¬
, “ <”
}, “©
_% < =^.
[148.] %
}¨ “Á33 +
@
%
$, Á + ·} @

_$ =
.”
[149.] %
# <
+ = ¯ @=$%¨ “@<Ë + @=$%
.”
[150.] %
}
> }$# > +
} #=\

, > +

#
.
[151.] %
@%
= Ê
,
_
$
#<%
,
}¨ “©
·=
³ <#Õ
_ ¬
.”
[152.] #%
> + # < Ê>
^ #^
< \=,
¤ + ¹" >
^
.
[153.] $ ¡
¤
<>
} @\<® ¨ “©
_
%
=³ "# , #Ë
> © "#
#"\
%¨” ÷ #Ë
_¬
+ _ , < + @(245v)\
_ }
¹
%¨ “ ¤ >
= ¤ _Ñ

% ·#
, =ò @Ó .”
[154.] T$%34 ~ =% @%
= “
$
= ;” }¨
“
+ #<% ,
+ # ©
^
.”
[155.] \<

Á \
@ } <, @"#¬, }=
, Ü Á #Ô =’ Ò ^.
[156.]
#$%
% _¬

@
\ ~
<\ }’ { ·=% + #" +

Ô
% ¡
×# .
[157.] +
> ^
$ ,
+ ¬

> .
[158.] > ¤ = "=
}$# $,
> + ¤ "# = $
¬.
[159.] #

%
}$#% = + < \, +
$%
@ #.
33
cod.
34
$% cod.; the sigma was added by a later hand.
288
[160.] ³ <³ $
ý
"
, Ù

$% ¤ #\.
[161.] ¯ $ _^
> #> @

´
$.
[162.] (246r) > % ·®, Ú } ¸
, ## ·#
.
[163.] ¬
+ $ $, ~ + #<> %
.
[164.] + }$# $% + @$ ,
’ $ + =\
.
[165.] =% Á +
>
=
% =, Á +

_

.
[166.] <$% $ < ~
##
#<.
[167.] /" ¿ #
= }$#
Ä=
}$#%.
[168.] ¶$#
_^
_^ ~
> =.
[169.] ¶ < + }#$,
+ <= _=.
[170.] ¶$# ¤ < _ $¨ <

}#$ @

"\".
[171.] ¶
_$ Ú
## _$
,
_ + } .
[172.] ¶#<$ @
= .
[173.] ¶$# #=¤ ~ % @
}
}$#.
[174.] ¶# @=#> #< , û
<=¤ #<
"#}$ #$
.
[175.] ²¤
> Á> ^# ¿
^
> ý
> \
¨ ~ + < }
^

> ^# @
$, ~ + ´.
[176.] ² # < ¨ “
> (246v) <
¤ #¬= _> @
=
.”
[177.] ²
> ·=% > < .
[178.] ²$#% @%
= $,
$ @
#

, }¨ “
> < ¡
.”
[179.] ²$ _
## ¤ _$
.
[180.] ²> #^ }#}$ ®\<

@
.
[181.] ²¤
}^

+
¯ }#$ Ê¬
\

} % @# $} ,
+
¯ _=
<#
¤
_$

}$ .
[182.] _¯ \< _# @
~ ^.
[183.] $= "# · ¤ \_¨ < $
^

¨ Ú <

·##% ò
Ñ#® Ó, ¹
%
Ê> ^
# <× ¡
Ò =ò .
[184.] ^ @
# _=+ # $
_
¤ @
\´ #<´
#¬= @ \.
[185.] ^ ©
=\#Õ
=¯, @ ¤ òÕ = \# #= $,

.
[186.] #= _$.
[187.] þ =
>
> }, ¹
% ò +
¤ ¾<¤ _
=Ñ
, ©
%} @Ó

.
[188.] þ
¤ \#

> \
, ## (247r)
> >
^ \#
}# , ¹
% }$# ¤ ’ @$# ³, ##
¤ û
<.
289
[189.] þ Á @ $ø #\

>
> _ _
, ¹
%
Á @
_$ø }^

>
_$
Ñ "=ò
.
[190.] þ ~ > @%
©® Ê @ "#\
> $ @

$, ¹
% ~ => @ _×
> #<> @

> "×
@
^ ·
}Ó
³ Óø "#\ .
[191.] þ # _ © @ $ø # < $, ##’ © > _

\_
, ¹
%
=% Á ¾<³ ¬
\_

<#®_ .
[192.] 0
#,35

%
<= ^.
[193.] ÿ Ê>
^ ^ $, ¹
% Á }= Ê>
^ $ Ä=

=$
.
[194.] þ
^

\ , û
%
\ Á .
Text 49
A short chronicle, inc. @ (f. 247r)
%Ç ¹
< <\
Ì
¡¬
¾
¨ }’ +
Ì @<\

_" \_
¯ ,\ " %.
Text 53
Views on the soul, inc. / @ >/ (ff. 254r–256v)
1236 + _ ®_¯

¯ $
¯ @
$= { ¨
¤ + ÷
$
¯ $ ¿ }+ Ú ¤ ¿
@ \
®_,
¤ +
}
¬,
¤ + =
¬,
¤ + #<¬. $ + }

}+ û
¤ %
¬

, û

@ ¡
\´
> ¿ @_
%,
##3 ¾

=

\ _%
^
Ê}
¯.
*#¯¨ < @ ¹#
\=
. ¯¨ · < @
.
¨
< ¡
\%= #"
> ¯,
> >
¯ ®_¯, ##
> ¿

¯

¤ %¤ $%
. ##$%

%
## , @

$ <

Õ ##$% ¡
\ . =
¨ ©
%¬ @
=

¿ ÷37
^ ¾<^
¨
<
^
^

> =
¿
# . + ÷
¯ $
¯
^
¬=%.
Á + (254v) $
û # $
^
##¬#%
}\ Ú
¤ $ =

. \
¤
@
¤ @\< }\ ¨ < _ #\<

^ @ <

35
# cod.
36
12] ¦ cod.
37
÷] ÷ cod.
290
ý _ . ^ +
·## + ·##% >
¤ @
_ $.
+
< ^ _ ¹
% \#%
®_ %¨ Á + %

¾<% @
#\_ Ä

#

¤
¤ $ @\<

# , ¤
^ %
^ $ ¾<. =
"#"\

@$

^ ¾< \ \<
. Á + _% ¾< } @ < ,

¯ #<¯ %¯ .
3 $¨ <%
¤ + ^, ¾
¤ +
=\#,
3 ÷ "#.
Á + 3 ¾<%, Á + }
$, }
#$% Ê$
.
Á +
¯ #< %¯ }
+ ÷ $,
=
¤
¤
^
~$ <
¬.38
3 #<%, (255r) Á + <%
$, Á + ¾
$, Á +
~
$. <%
\, =
39 }
$, ¬. ¹
%
=
¬, }

¬,
¬,
¬. ¾
+ => @=$,
¹
% => @=
. ~
\

$%
^

¬, >

"
¬,
¤
}%
¬.
+ ÷ }

}
\ _ ,
3 ·#< Î
}
_
}
##,
+
\
¯ #< %¯.
+
¤ =
¤ ©, ¬, Û}, < ^ *}¬. +
#<¤ ®_¤
}
_
#< }
ý
·#<,
+
#\
#< \.
+ ÷
÷ ®_¤ =
Î
+ @ <
,
##
+
#< ,
+
·## }
.
}
¬ +
^

+
·##
(255v) 3 ¾<%
@ < @ < ,
+
#< , ##
^

}
Ú @ ¿
¤ ^ @\< >
¹ } ,
} +
¤ _%\ @\< .
> < ~ ^ <
<
~# <
^

Ù

=¬ .

Õ

¹ ##
40 @$% ~ £#
% @#
¤

%¬¨ ¾
< ## ^ ý < . }$ + @

¬
@}\ = \, ##3
^ >
^
¯ ¹# = @ . ~ +
^ ¹
%
=
¨ =
< #=¤ ^ %¬, %¤ 3#=

=
<%<¤
¤ $ _=\. \ < "#
"#

^

³ =#³
#<% ¾\ %, ##3 ©# @

\
\
Î Î. ¹
% + ÷ _%
@ < ®_¤ \}
41 %¤ ·4# \, ,
¬, }¬, @# =\
>
(256r) " ##<\,42
+
¤ @
, ~$
>
, ¼
, ·}=
#¬®
, ©% @ <^, ¿ +
" ~ #
¤ }= ÷= ¬% =}
´
_ . + = @, ~ + % @
, + ¤ Õ
<¬
.
38
<
¬] <
¬ cod.
39

] + cod.
40
##
] #
cod.
41
] cod.
42
##<\] #<\ cod.
291
292
Text 57
On entelechy, inc. *
(f. 278r–v)

#\_ 43 <\% +
^ @
#^ _ #\<
, Ä<

>
@
#+ ,
#

^ <
=’ ¦
> @
#+ _
> <, =’ ¦
\# @
¿
> <¨ > ·=% @
#\_ ,
>
¬

" <
# <
, ##’
@ @
#\_ 44 @
·=% ~
=
_= Ú

>
=% ¿
# %= $. ©=
¤ ®_¤ @
#\_ ~$

^
}^ ¾<^ %¤ _

, _ ©
45 @\< @

(278v) ®_¬, ##’ ©

’ @ $
#

Î. #
’ @
#\_
^
# $ @\< ,

> ’
# $ @\< ¨
<
# $% Á
@\<
\# ,

#
# . @
#\_ + #\<

# $
@\< , Ú
> @
#+ _ ¹
Ú @
#
¤
¯ @_ $, Ä<
# %
¤
¯ %¨
_
+ *# #\<
@\< @
#\_
=’ ©
@ <^ $%
$ @ < $

¤ ¡
^
},

# $ }

#¤

^

> . $
@
#\_ #\<
, Ä< *# @\< .
Text 60
Pythagorean categories, inc.
+ @
/ (f. 279r–v)
<`>

_$
@ ^ Á =< \
> =, }’
<

Û
Ú \ _¨ <=> – , \ –
· ,
> – ·
, <> – <>#¯=, (279v) <> >46 –

, <}>47 –
, <·> – <=>¯#, <Ð> ^ –
<> , < >= – <>Ô#, <
>
Ñ<% – <¡>
× .
43

#\_ ]
#\_ + cod.
44
@
#\_ ] @
#\_ cod.
45
_ ©
] Ú supra ©
cod.
46
<> >] | > cod.
47
<}>] cod.
293
# @
¾
, Á
%
%
% ¬ #\<

_

¨ <=>
– <®>_
, <Ê><
– <>
,
<>}
– <">
, <>#
– <>#
, <<>#_
–
<>
, <#>
– <
>_
, <#>

– <>_
,
<>
– <>
. <>\
$, =
, ¡"
,

%
¨ {
> + ¯,
> + #
¯,
> +

. <õ> \
¨

<%,
$<%, º",
\, <>#.
Text 61
<>@V

/,
@[
(ff. 279v–
280v)
<>$#V %
·<¨ #$. · (?)¨ } .
Ã#¨ . ·
¨ _%$.
#¨ Á
. Ã% (= _%?)¨ #"%.
= ¨ ##
.
\¨ <¯. <>

=
¨ $
.
<%>j@* "¨
.
_¬¨ #<_. _$
¨
$_ .
<¨ #=.
¨ ¿. %j @
}# ¨
. \¨ .
û#¨ #}.
<> ¨ %ô.
@\ ¨ #\< . $¨ ~ < .

$_ ¨ . \=¨ ¿.
¬¨ ®_¬. \#¨
.
<> |

·¨ $}.
¨
.
=¬< ¨ . }¨ ¾}. ¾} + #\<
Á ®$
¨ _.
> }
$, >
¯
#\
¨ #$.
@ = <¯, © } ~
#"¨ @
. £#
%.
¨ . #¨ #¯.
¿¨ . ¨ "\#.
=¬¨ #
.
<B>@

" ¨ }"
.
< ¨ (f. 280r) #\< . \# ¨ Ê¬
.
· % ¨ Ù_. }<¨ $}.
¿¨ . _¨ <¯.

¨ ®}.
<¨ <®.
¬#¨ "
.
¨ \= . (cf. LSJ, s.v.
\%, <\%)
294
<>
@* ® ¨ #" .
=¨ . "¨
> .
$¨ @$#. ¨ =.
<> <^>
¿®¨
_\%. ¨ #"¤ $}. (#"¤ scripsi: ##¤
· = ¨ _%$. cod.)
"
¨ ·=%. }#=. }#.
¡¨ %. }<¨ ^.
#$¨ Ê$. <#¨ #.
$¨ \.

¨ }#¬. <>
¨
#
¨ ^#. ¨ }#.
\#=¨ $.
<^>
@ $ ¨ .
¬
¨ · . }< (< cod.)¨ =.
¬¨ }%¬.
\ ¨ ~.

¨ $. ·}%¨ }
.
@=#¨ <=. ·
¨ @
$
# ¨ ~. = ¨ Á ^#.
= ¨ = . ¨ @#$%.
_# (_¯# cod.)¨ "%
. ¨ $.
¨
_\%. ¯
¨ "
$.
##\¨ "_$ , Á <#. } ¨ Á
.
<> <=>*>
/

^¨ . "#¨ ~ .
\¨ . }#$¨

.
º ¨ <.
<^># %$ #¨ @
@## =¬
<
¨ =¬ }\
%. (scr. #¬%.
<
; cf. Hsch. s.v., Etym.magn.
"^¨ ~
¬

s.v. <%
)
% .
#¨ \%. _#¨ ~ %
=.

¨ ©#. "#¨
> <#.
# ¨ #$=. @<
¨ ~
.
_=¨ .
#$
¨ $
.
}
¨ · . #¨
Ù.

%
#¨ Ä<
\
^+ "#.
#¨ ~
}#. }¨
<}\ }#$
º
\.
(280v) <^>@
$

%(?)¨
#.

¨ #=\. ##
¨ @}¬.
·#<¨ ¾. %
¨
>
,
>
·#_¨ <¬.
¯ @
=\.
\¨
¬.

¨ Ä< @$
.
295
Text 65b
A short chronicle: in the margin of f. 283v three more sultans have been
added to the list of Text 65a. The text was partly trimmed away.
~
~ # |
£<
|
@¯
° =%%. |
\
Á
|
~ # # |
£ |
#. |
\

|
Á
~ # |
#
~ @ |
¤ 5 ¡# |

¤ Â<$
|
} 6
_^ |
<
= |
... ~ #
Text 66
A geomantic treatise, inc. ^ º#$ \= (ff. 283v–285v)
Text 81
A formulary, inc.
Î ø | Papae |
Î *<%

´ %

´, etc. (ff.
320r–323r)
296
Appendix 2: Codicological table
Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, (olim Sparwenfeldt 49, olim Escorialensis . VI. 16)
A composite with miscellaneous contents.
Paper, ff. iii + 342 + iii, 135 x 90 mm, Crete? ca. 1480.
Cod Texts Folios Quires Water- Boundary Textual

unit marks Criteria types
U1 1. Pinax 1 (
@
³
³ "$"#´.) I–IIr Q1: binion where the first leaf no wm
Added in El Escorial, circa 1576. has been cut out
2. Pinax 2 (prior El Escorial pinax, discarded) IIv–IIIr
ABCJKL
MO
U2 3. Stephanites and Ichnelates 1r–86v Q2: [1–6] ternion Oxhead Narr
Inc. <|> }#$%
¯ <
$. Expl. Q3: [7–12, 12a–12b] 1 ternion + Oxhead
@#
< $, ¬. 2 leaves glued together and
The most recent edition of this work is SJÖBERG 1962 (on attached to the ternion
Symeon Seth’s version, recension A). The text in Gr 8 belongs Q4–11: [13–75] 8 quaternions Oxhead
to recension B, for which we still rely on Puntoni’s edition, (number 34 used for two ff.: (8 quat.)
PUNTONI 1889. Gr 8 was used for Aurivillius’ edition of the 34+34a)
prolegomena, Prolegomena ad librum 1780. Q12: [76–83] quaternion; the no wm
coarser paper quality matches
the following binion
Q13: [84–87] binion Balance
4. Later notes 87r–v
A petition draft concerning a land dispute, dated Sept. 10, 1546.
Notes on a bishop’s benediction of land, dated Dec. 9, 1546.
A doxology, followed by pen trials at the bottom of the page.
ABCEFG
JLM
U3 5. Isocrates, Oration 1 (µ< ¥
> ) 88–98r Q14: [88–95] quaternion Scissors Prac
Ed. MANDILARAS 2003. Q15: [96–103] quaternion Scissors
6. Anonymous, On the soul and its faculties (Á \
98r Prac

¯ ®_¯). Inc. ^, , . Expl. ¬,
< ^ *}¯. See Appendix 1.
7. <Gregory of Nazianzos, Ep. 114> (# $
^ <# 98v–99r Narr/

<
> \<) (Rhet)
Inc. ¬
¤ %¤ @<# . Expl. ©
#
%¬%. Ed. GALLAY 1967. PG 37, 209–212.
8. <Ps.-Hippocrates, Epp. 8, 9, 1> 99r–100r Rhet
a.
#¤ "#\% |
\ > . b. |#<$
% > "#\. c. |
\ > £\
%.
Ed. SAKALIS 1989; SMITH 1990.
9. Anacharsis, Epp. 1–8 (
# |_ =) 100r–103r Rhet
Inc. Ep. 1: #
@¤ }%¬. Expl. Ep. 8: @#$ # @

´. Ed. REUTERS 1957.
10a. Five sayings from the Alexander Romance 103r–v (Narr)/
Historia Alexandri Magni, Recensio (lib. 3): p. 41, 11–15 (cf. Prac
Gnom. Vat. 95); p. 40, 9–11; p. 40, 12–19; p. 41, 8–11; p. 40,
20–22. Ed. VAN THIEL 1959.
10b. Two sayings 103v (last Prac
£\% <
> ##, ##’ %} (Lib. three lines)
Decl. 6. 2, 35); ÿ @
_^ @ º Ê, ¹
%
} < ## (Prov. 11:22).
ABFGO
U4 11a–b. Paul of Aegina, Medical Compendium (£# 104–122v Q16: [104–111] quaternion Scissors Prac
<$

^

@

} %) Q17: [112–119] quaternion Scissors
a. Book 1, chs. 73–99. b. Book 1, ch. 100 (= Diocles of Kary- Q18: [120–127] quaternion Scissors
stos, Prophylactic letter). Ed. HEIBERG 1921 (CMG 9:1).
12. A botanical lexicon (µ >
¯
"
¡ $ 122v–127r Prac

_ ). Inc.
\¨ }#\. Expl. ¨
>
"#. See Appendix 1.
13. <Aetius of Amida, Sixteen Books on Medicine XV, 15, 127r–v Prac
693–704> (a formula)
Inc. Ë
} <=¯ }^ _.
Expl. ^ ®Ñ. Ed. ZERVOS 1909.
14. Anonymous, On contraceptives 127v Prac
Inc. # "
. Expl.
$
> .
See Appendix 1.
15. Hippocrates, <On the Number Seven, 5> (cf. Philo, Op. 127v Prac
105). Inc. ¥
\ Ú ¸
¡
#$. Expl.
>
@
^= "<\. Ed. ROSCHER 1913.
ABFGO
U5 16. Gregory Thaumatourgos, Treatise on the Soul (^ 128r–132r Q19: [128–135] quaternion Scissors PhTh
*<$ <$
^
<^ ®_¯)
Inc. µ×< ®_¯ #=Óø

Ñ . Expl. @ $_=
· #<¤ ®_¬. CPG 1773; PG 10, 1137–1145.
17. <John Philoponos, Commentary in Aristotle’s De Anima> 132r–134r PhTh
excerpts
Ed. HAYDUCK 1897. References within brackets are to the
corresponding pages and lines in Hayduck’s edition:
a. (f. 132r ll. 6–14) Tit.: @
ý
, inc.

®_¤
¨

¤ ¡
^ }Ô. Expl.
®_¤ å
× · [12, 25–32].
b. (f. 132r l. 14–132v l. 2) Inc. Ò @
Î
Î _×´.
Expl.
@
Ó%
#"Ñ
[13, 1–5].
c. (f. 132v ll. 3–8) Inc. + @
Î
Î _×´. Expl.
^ +
= [13, 7–12].
d. (f. 132v ll. 8–10) Inc. ¬
< . Expl.
^
Ê’ ·## ~=Ò
[13, 19–20].
e. (f. 132v ll. 10–14) Inc. ÷ @
Î
Î _´. Expl.

^
÷ å
[13, 14–17].
f. (f. 132v ll. 14–133r l. 6) Inc.
Ó Á
Ò
. Expl.
Ò
®_¤ #<¤
¤ ¡
¤ [14, 28–29 and 31–36].
g. (f. 133r l. 6–133v l. 12) Inc. @
@ < . Expl.
Ò_ =
¯ _%
¯ [15, 15–34].
h. (f. 133v ll. 12–17) Inc. ©
÷
. Expl.
Ó _%
¤
× @
[16, 5–12].
i. (ff. 133v l. 17–134r l. 9) Inc. + =Ñ
, ©

}= × . Expl.
’ Ò ·
× }= Ó
[46,
28–34].
18. Anonymous, On the three states in life (£

134r–137r Q20: [136–143] quaternion Scissors PhTh

^ "$)
Inc.

^ "$ ¿ . Expl.
>
¤
}
^ ^. See Appendix 1.
19. Anonymous, On the three stages of spiritual life 137r–138v PhTh

Inc.
. Expl.
¯ }$
¯ = #<$.
See Appendix 1.
20. Manuel Christonymos, Monody on the Capture of Con- 138v–147r Q21: [144–151] quaternion Scissors (Narr)/
stantinople (^ }^ #<$ # ^ Rhet
°¤#
^ ²
´$ @
³ ¬
´
*#
¯ %

$ # %). Ed. LAMPROS 1908.
21. Leonardo Bruni, The Constitution of Florence 147r–151v PhTh
(µ |
$ #
$ ¶#
$%)
Inc. ¤ @= \. Expl. #
$
\
.
Ed. MOULAKIS 1986.
22. The Seven Wonders 151v Prac
<>Á $
^ ¥%¬}, <>"#
$_,

# ", <°># >
},
#%> , <>> $, \
¢#\%.
Cf. BRODERSEN 1992, 142, no. 28.
ABFG
U6 23. George Gemistos Plethon, On Virtues (^ }%

152r –162v Q22: [152–159] quaternion Scissors PhTh
#<%

^ %<$
^
^ #< Q23: [160–167] quaternion Scissors

, ©
¯)
Inc. |
¬ @
. Expl. __

.
.

.
Ed. TAMBRUN-KRASKER, 1987; PG 160, 865–882.
24. George Gemistos Plethon, Reply to George Scholarios’ 162v –163r Rhet
defense of Aristotle ( %<$
^
^ > <

> _#)
Inc. <Ë + ¾®\. Expl. ·##%
® , i.e.,
only the introductory part of the treatise is included.
Ed. MALTESE 1988; PG 160, 979–1020.
25a–c. Bessarion, Epp. 22, 49, 50 163r–167v Rhet
a. Ep. 22: $% # ÁÎ
^.
b. (f. 163v) Ep. 49: $% # °_¬#´
Î
|
#Õ.
c. (f. 167v) Ep. 50: $% # $´
Î
##$
. Ed. MOHLER 1942, 468f. and 511–513; PG 161,
695–698, 687–692, and 691–694.
26. Nicholas Sagundino, Letter to Andronikos Kallistos 167v–173r Q24: [168–175] quaternion Scissors Rhet
(
#¤ #
^ ^ > |
>
##
). PG 161, 691–696.
27. Libanios, Declamation 26 (µ "$ > ## <) 173r–186v Q25: [176–183] quaternion Scissors Rhet
Ed. FOERSTER 1911, VI, 494–544. Q26: [184–191] quaternion Scissors
28. John Chrysostom [dub.], Speech against Herodias (µ< 186v–189v (PhTh)/
^ <# ²

¢% < Rhet
)
Inc. Â+
$ =$. Expl. ¤ *
%#Î
%=ò
. The text does not include the full introduction and
breaks off early; cf. PG 59, 486–488a). CPG 4001 and 4570.
29. John Chrysostom [dub.], Sermon without a title (
^ 189v–190v (PhTh)/

^) spec
Inc.
¤ $. Expl. _ Ù
Á <
^.
CPG 4878; see the edition, p. 186.
30. Marc Eugenikos, Thoughts (
^ *<$ ° 190v–192v Q27: [192–199] quaternion Scissors PhTh
^ } $% © %¯

¯ %$ # %)
Inc. £ +
^ ^. Expl. ¹
% ~
^ $

#<. See Appendix 1.
31. Marc Eugenikos, Analogies (
^
^¨ |#<$
192v–193r PhTh
#\% # % >
*
¬
)
Inc.
@
"=. Expl.
^
. See
Appendix 1.
32. Anonymous, A problem 193r–v PhTh
Inc. |$ \_
~ = >. Expl. ¡$% ¡
¤
_%$. See Appendix 1.
33. Anonymous, Hymn to the Theotokos (õ_¤
¤ 193v–194v PhTh
Ê <$ \ =
)
Inc. £
,
. Expl.

.
See Appendix 1.
34. John of Damascus, On virtues and vices, excerpt (^ 194v–195r PhTh
*<$ ¥%
^ ^
#< ’ {
*
$
#
)
Inc.

Á
$. Expl. Ñ#
Ó

^ #<^.
PG 95, 92D–93B. CPG 8111.
35. Sayings by Maximos, Demosthenes, et al. 195v–196r Prac
Inc. ^ *<$ °$

¯ ®_¯.
Expl. Ê
= . See Appendix 1.
36a–b. Isidore of Pelousion, Epp. , 390 and , 167. 196r–v Rhet
(a. ¥å
^ £#å
@
#¬. b.
^
^)
a. Inc. |$ #$. b. Inc. > _ _$
.
PG 78, 401 and 292f.
37. Three short sayings. 196v Prac
_ < ¤
_^ Á }\.
°¬ =
_
Î "$´.
Ì }#}$¨ #\
=
.
38. A gnomology derived from Constantine Manasses’ 197r–199v Prac
Synopsis Chronike.
Inc. Â¹
% +
¯ =^. Expl. _ } < .
See Appendix 1. Cf. LAMPSIDES 1996.
39. An owner’s note? name:
# }#
199v
and the phrase _
...
can be seen.
Cf. No. 87, below.
ABFGJL
(M)
U7 40. George Gemistos Plethon, Reply to the Treatise in Sup- 200r–206v Q28: [200–207] quaternion Anchor PhTh
port of the Latin Doctrine
Inc. > Ê+ µ
$% ""#$. Expl.

"# \ ¡#\=.
PG 160, 975–980.
41. Mark Eugenikos, On the filioque doctrine (no author or 206v–207v PhTh
title given by main scribe; ° ~ } }

_ added by a later hand)
Inc.
+ < @
^ = ^. Expl.
> + <
,

> + @
. See Appendix 1.
ABFJO
U8 42. <John Tzetzes, Book of Histories> excerpts 208r–223v Q29: [208–215] quaternion Oxhead Narr/
a. (f. 208r ll.1–17) Chil. , hist. 3, 140–159. Q30: [216–223] quaternion Oxhead Rhet
b. (f. 208r l. 18–208v l. 9) Chil. ², hist. 316, 167–177
c. (ff. 208v l. 10–209r l. 13) Chil. ², hist. 361, 962–987
d. (f. 209r l. 13–209v l. 5) Chil. ², hist. 368, 90–101
e. (ff. 209v l. 6–210r l. 2) Chil. , hist. 34, 65 and 68–105
f. (ff. 210r l. 3–212v l. 8) Chil. I, hist. 27, 703–808
g. (ff. 212v l. 9–216v) Chil. I, hist. 32, 851–II, 18
h. (f. 217r ll. 1–5) Chil. I, hist. 28, 809–814
i. (ff. 217r l. 6–223v) Chil. IV, 471–779 (letter to John Lacha-
nas). Ed. LEONE 1968.
ABCEJL
N
U9 43. <Theophylact Simokates, Epp. 1, 3–4, 9–10, 13–19, 26, 224r–231v Q31: [224–229] ternion; same no wm Rhet
29, 34, 37, 46, 60–61, 66> kind of paper as in Q28?
Ed. ZANETTO 1985. Q32: [230–237] quaternion Oxhead
44. The Decalogue 232r PhTh
Cf. LXX, Deut. 6:5; Exod. 20.
45. Lists of kings (Jewish patriarchs and kings; Chaldean, 232r–233v Prac
Persian, and Assyrian kings; Egyptian kings; Roman emperors)
Inc. £
|". Expl.
~
^ <# %
-

$
¬.
^= Á
²
"# .
46. Anonymous, <Carmen Paraeneticum, stanzas 1–20, 6> 234r–237v Rhet
Inc. "# ^ ~ #Ë # #<. Expl. ©

$# @\ ’ @#$.
Ed. LUNDSTRÖM 1902.
47. A short epigram 237v Rhet/
#"Ë
$
Ê> _ | }" @ \_ Prac
#< ¨ | ¹
< \_

_ , |
+ ¬ \ .
ABK
U10 48. A florilegium 238r–247r Q33: [238–245] quaternion Oxhead Prac
Inc. |#\ @%
= $,

% @=. Expl.
Q34: [246–253] quaternion Oxhead
\ Á . See Appendix 1.
49. A short chronicle 247r Narr/
Inc. % ¹
. Expl. \_
¯ ,\ " %. Prac
See Appendix 1.
50. A lexicon of synonyms 247v–253r Prac
Inc. |##
¨ Ê®

¤ }%¬. Expl. }$.
51. Michael Choniates, Elegy on Athens (
$_
^ 253r–v Rhet
}%

#$
|= ^ °_¤#
^ ²%

@
³ _
´
¬ # % |=)
Ed. MERCATI 1935; LAMPROS 1879–80, II, 397f.
52. Anonymous, <Carmen Paraeneticum, stanza 17> 253v Rhet
Inc. Á }#}. Expl.
^ #< =\
.
Cf. Text 46, above.
ABE
U11 53. Anonymous, Views on the soul 254r–256v Q35: [254–261] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
Inc. Í + _ ®_¯. Expl. + ¤ Õ
<¬
. See Appendix 1.
54. Two short sayings 256v Prac
°¬ =
_
Î "$´.
Ì }#}$¨
^ =
#\
.
Cf. Text 37, above.
55. Anonymous, A prose paraphrase of Gregory of Nazian- 257r-261v (PhTh)/
zos’ poem On Virtue (Carm. mor. I. 2, 9) Rhet
Inc. £= + @
¯
¯. Expl. \ @ $ }%

#=¬
.
Ed. SEARBY 2003a.
AE
U12 56. <Theodoret of Kyrros, Cure of the Pagan Maladies> 262–278r Q36: [262–269] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
Four longer excerpts: Thdt, Affect 4.5–16; 4.32–42; 5.8–52; and Q37: [270–277] quaternion Oxhead
6.11–26. Q38: [278–285] quaternion Oxhead
Ed. CANIVET 1958.
57. Anonymous, On entelechy 278r–v PhTh
Inc.
#\_ + <\%. Expl. Ä< *#
@\< . See Appendix 1.
58a–b. Two epigrams, AP IX 359–360 278v–279r Rhet
a. <Posidippus>, AP IX 359. Inc. < > < + Ó .
b. <Metrodoros> (
^
^), AP IX 360. Inc. £
Ó
"×

Ñ".
Ed. BECKBY 1968.
59. Sayings of the Seven Sages (heading in a later hand: 279r Prac
#<
}
)
Inc. <>$ ~ £ ¨ Á # $ $. õxpl. <~>

Ò "
.
Cf. TZIATZI-PAPAGIANNI 1994, 444.
60. Anonymous, Pythagorean categories 279r–v PhTh
Inc. <`>

_$
@ ^. Expl. º",
\,
<>#. See Appendix 1. Similar enumerations of opposites
are found in many works and commentaries in the Aristotelian
tradition. Cf. also Arist. Metaph. 986a, 23–26; Hero, Geom. 3,
18–22.
61. A dialectal lexicon (<> <#
# ,
279v–280v Prac
#^
<#%¬
)
Inc. <|>=%¨ ·<¨ #$. Expl.

¨ Ä<
@$
. See Appendix 1.
62. Lists of patriarchates, sees etc. (heading in a later hand: 281r–282v Prac

_ #
# _ )
Inc. £# , \ . Expl. # $ ¥$.
For similar lists, see DARROUZÈS 1981.
63. List of inventors (heading in a later hand:
\_
283r Prac
}
)
Inc. ^ @ ^ #
¬. Expl.
_ $ #.
64. A short chronicle from Adam to Justinian 283r–v Prac
Inc. `
> | %
^
#^. Expl.
^
<# ¥
^
.
65a. Lists of Palaiologan emperors and sultans 283v Prac
Inc. £
£##< °_¬#. Expl. @} = Ê>

|<.
65b. A short chronicle (marginal note in a later hand) 283v
Inc. ~
~ #
£<
. Expl.
}6
_^
<
= ... ~ # . See Appendix 1.
66. A geomantic treatise, The method of ramplion 283v–285v (Prac)/
Inc. ^ º#$ \=. Expl.

> + spec
<. See the edition, p. 218.
ABHJLM
O
U13 67. Basil the Great, Ep. 2 (^ @ *<Ó
> 286r–290v Q39: [286–293] quaternion traces of Rhet
# $ *_ $ $
^ wm on
<# ~#$ > <
> #<¨ £ "$ 288.

%). Inc. Ò<%
¤ @
#ò. (crown?)
CPG 2900. Ed. COURTONNE 1953.
68. Libanios and Basil the Great, Correspondence (
- 290v–297r Q40: [294–301] quaternion Rhet
# "
^ µ"$ >
> \< $# )
Epp. Lib.-Bas. 7; 1; 15–22; 2–6; 8–9; 13–14; 10–12 (numbering
according to Foerster’s edition).
CPG 2900. Ed. FOERSTER 1922, 11, 572–597.
69. Gregory of Nazianzos Ep. 236 (µ"$´ <) 297r Rhet
Inc. £
¤
\} .
CPG 3032. Ed. GALLAY 1967.
70. Basil the Great, Epp. 330, 332, 186 and 187 297r–v Rhet
CPG 2900. Ed. COURTONNE 1961–66.
71a–b. Josephus, The Jewish War, excerpts 297v–299v Narr/
a. <$ $
Á^ Â ^ (BJ 3, 472–484). Inc. (Rhet)
@ @×´
# . Expl. #Ò

=å .
b. <$ ¥%¬ (BJ 3, 361–382). Inc. <> Ó +
¤
}. Expl. Ó% }Ò% =Ó.
Ed. PELLETIER 1980.
72. Nikephoros Gregoras, A letter to Metochites (
#¤ 299v–301v Rhet
< >
> }

#<=\
#
¤
¯

$) Cf. Nik. Greg., Hist. I. 322, 19 – 327, 5.
Inc. < > + @Ó Ã
. Expl. Ù Á -
#ò . Ed. BEKKER & SCHOPEN 1855.
ABDEJL
U14 73. <Leo VI, Canticum compunctionis> 302r–303v Q41: [302–307] quaternion Oxhead (PhTh)/
Inc. æ
$ <¯= $. Expl. Ú ·_ # . minus 6th and 7th leaf Rhet
Ed. CICCOLELLA 1989; MATRANGA 1850, II, 683–688.
74. <Constantine Sikeliotes, An anacreontic poem> 303v–305r (Narr)/
Inc. |> #=%. Expl. Ú }%
Rhet
#%.
Ed. MONACO 1951; MATRANGA 1850, II, 689–692.
75. Pen trials and an owner’s note. 305v–307v
Cf. p. 101, above.
ABFGKL
MO
U15 76. Three Psalms, in Latin and supralinear Greek 308r–314v Q42: [308–315] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
a. Ps. 32 (=LXX, Ps. 31) Beati quorum remissae sunt /
°Ñ { }Ò= Á Ó.
b. Ps. 38 (=LXX, Ps. 37) Domine ne in furore tuo / Ô , ¤

Î =Î .
c. Ps. 51 (=LXX, Ps. 50) Miserere mei Deus / #Ò× , ~
×.
77. <Ausonius, De institutione viri boni> 315r–v Rhet/
Inc. Vir bonus et sapiens. Expl. palmam et praemia victis (sic). Prac?
Ed. CLAUSEN 1966; PRETE 1978 (under the title: ²VI ‘De viro
bono’ %
"| X>").
78. Later note 315v
Inc. Ë + <+
} (sic). Cf. p. 105, above.
79. Liturgical texts, in Latin and supralinear Greek 316r–318r Q43: [316–323] quaternion Oxhead PhTh
a. Ave Maria / ² °$. b. Pater Noster / £
¤ .
c. Credo in unum Deum / £
% = .
80. A psalm, in Latin and supralinear Greek 318v–319v PhTh
Ps. 6 Domine ne in furore tuo / Ô , ¤
Î =Î.
81. A formulary, in Latin and supralinear Greek 320r–323r (Prac)/
Inc. Papae /
Î ø. Expl. honorato viro domino / @
$´ spec
$´. See the edition, p. 242.
82. Later notes (alphabets) 323r–v
83. An arithmetic problem (incomplete; added by a later 323v
hand) Inc. ¬#
. Expl. _% <. \
Cf. p. 107, above.
ABFGJL
O
U16 84. Mathematical problems, part one 324r–328r Q44: [324–331] quaternion traces of Prac
Inc. ¿
###$
9

10. Expl. ¹ wm on
}#
¤ $ ¡> ¡
. 324 and
Ed. SEARBY 2003b. 331 (hat?)
85. Later notes 328r–329r
Pen trials; an indecent(?) microtext; a proverb on friendship.
Cf. p. 107, above.
86. Mathematical problems, part two 329v–331r Prac
Inc. =\# = ~ . õxpl. + @" ¡

\ #=\.
Ed. SEARBY 2003b.
87. A note 331v
_

(cf. No. 39, above).
ABCFGJ
LMO
U17 88a–b. Life of Aesop and Aesopian Fables 332r–336v Q45: [332–336] ternion where traces of Narr/
a. “Vita III” (Ed. EBERHARD 1872, 309f.; Cf. PERRY 1952, the last leaf has been cut out wm on (Prac)
212f., “Testimonium 1a”). 332
b. 59 fables (numbered according to HAUSRATH & HUNGER): and 334
Fab. 1 (first half), inc. |
> #, expl. =
% +

.
Vita W, 93–100, inc. ©% , expl. <%\

# $
.
Fab. 1 (second half), inc.
>

, expl.
%$
}
.
Fab. (HAUSRATH & HUNGER) 2–4; 9–10; 16–20; 22–23; 27;
284; 283; (PERRY) 275; (HAUSRATH & HUNGER) 42; 29; 24;
11; 21; 28; 12–13; 44; 43; 45; 47; 49–50; 60; 57; 52–53; 58;
64; 66–67; 69; 239; 270; 184; 81; 76; 208; 100; 103; 289; 285;
115; A1; 116–117; 120; 126; 288; 146–147. The last fable
(inc. #\% <) is truncated, expl. _ ##["Ñ%
etc.].
Ed. HAUSRATH & HUNGER 1956 and 1970; PERRY 1952.
Bibliography
Bibliography
ADLER, ADA, ed. Suidae Lexicon: Lexicographi Graeci. Vol. 1.1–1.4. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1928–1938.
AGAPITOS, PANAGIOTIS A. “7 =\
=
¬
$ « \ »

$
"
¬ #<
_$.” In: ODORICO & AGAPITOS 2002. 185–232.
—. “Genre, Structure and Poetics in Byzantine Vernacular Romances of Love.”
Symbolae Osloenses 79:1 (2004): 5–98.
ALDAMA, JOSÉ ANTONIO DE. Repertorium pseudochrysostomicum. Documents,
études et répertoires 10. Paris: CNRS, 1965.
ALEXIOU, MARGARET. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. London: Cambridge
UP, 1974.
ANDRÉS, GREGORIO DE. “Relaciones de los incendios del monasterio de El Escori-
al.” Documentos para la historia de San Lorenzo del Real de El Escorial 8
(1965): 65–136.
—. Catálogo de los códices griegos de la Real biblioteca de El Escorial. Vol. 3:
Códices 421–649. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1967.
—. Catálogo de los códices griegos desaparecidos de la Real Biblioteca de El Esco-
rial. L’Escorial: n.p., 1968.
—. El cretense Nicolás de la Torre, copista griego de Felipe II: Biografía, docu-
mentos, copias, facsímiles. Madrid, 1969.
ANGOLD, MICHAEL, ed. The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern
Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
ANROOIJ, WIM VAN. “Medieval Miscellanies from the Low Countries: An Introduc-
tion.” Codices miscellanearum: Brussels Van Hulthem colloquium 1999. Ed.
Ria Jansen-Sieben & Hans van Dijk. Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique.
Numéro spécial 60. Brussels: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, 1999. 19–
25.
ANTONOPOULOU, THEODORA. The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI. The Medieval
Mediterranean 14. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
ASTRUC, CHARLES & MARIE-LOUISE CONCASTY. Catalogue des manuscrits grecs.
Vol. 3: Le supplément grec. T. 3, Nos 901–1371. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale,
1960.
ATSALOS, BASILE. La terminologie du livre-manuscrit à l’époque byzantine. Vol. 1.
8##. £
21. Thessalonica, 1971.
BAGIAKAKOS, DIKAIOS B. “¢ @#
¤ <# %¤
##¤ ¾
#<$.” Athena 63 (1959): 195–245.
BARTON, TAMSYN. Ancient Astrology. Sciences of Antiquity. London: Routledge,
1994.
BATIFFOL, PIERRE. L’Abbaye de Rossano: Contribution a l’histoire de la Vaticane.
Paris: Picard, 1891.
BAUMGARTNER, FREDERIC J. Behind Locked Doors: A History of the Papal Elec-
tions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
311
Bibliography
BECK, HANS-GEORG. Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur. Byzantinisches

Handbuch 2:3. Munich: Beck, 1971.
—. Das literarische Schaffen der Byzantiner: Wege zu seinem Verständnis. SAWW
294.4. Vienna: ÖAW, 1974.
—. “Der Leserkreis der byzantinischen ‘Volksliteratur’ im Licht der handschriftli-
chen Überlieferung.” Byzantine Books and Bookmen. Dumbarton Oaks Collo-
quium 1971. New York: Augustin, 1975. 47–67.
—. Das byzantinische Jahrtausend. Munich: Beck, 1978.
BECKBY, HERMANN. Anthologia graeca. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Munich: Heimeran, 1965–
1968.
BEENTJES, PANCRATIUS C. “‘They saw that his forehead was leprous’ (2 Chr 26:20):
The Chronicler’s Narrative on Uzziah’s Leprosy.” Purity and Holiness: The
Heritage of Leviticus. Ed. Marcel Poorthuis & Joshua Schwartz. Jewish and
Christian Perspectives Series 2. Leiden: Brill, 2000. 61–72.
BEER, RUDOLF. Die Handschriftenschenkung Philipp II. an den Escorial vom Jahre
1576: Nach einem bisher unveröffentlichten Inventar des Madrider Palas-
tarchivs. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kai-
serhauses 23. Vienna: Tempsky, 1903.
BEKKER, IMMANUEL & LUDWIG SCHOPEN. Nicephori Gregorae historiae Byzan-
tinae. 3 vols. CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1855.
BELL, BILL. “English Studies and the History of the Book.” The European English
Messenger XI/2 (Autumn 2002): 27–33.
BELLONI, ANNALISA. Professori giuristi a Padova nel secolo XV: Profili bio-
bibliografici e cattedre. Ius commune, Sonderhefte: Studien zur Europäischen
Rechtsgeschichte 28. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1986.
BELLORI, GIOVANNI PIETRO. The Lives of the Modern Painters, Sculptors, and Ar-
chitects. Ed. and trans. Alice Sedgwick Wohl & Hellmut Wohl. New York:
Cambridge UP, 2005. (Ital. orig. 1672).
BELTING, HANS. “Byzantine Art among Greeks and Latins in Southern Italy.” DOP
28 (1974): 1–29.
BERRY, ARTHUR. A Short History of Astronomy from the Earliest Times Through the
Nineteenth Century. New York: Dover, 1961.
BIECHLER, JAMES E. “Nicholas of Cusa and the End of the Conciliar Movement: A
Humanist Crisis of Identity.” ChHist 44 (1975): 5–21.
BIGI, EMILIO. “Aurispa, Giovanni.” DBI 4 (1962): 593–595.
BIRGEGÅRD, ULLA. J. G. Sparwenfeld’s Diary of a Journey to Russia 1684–87.
Slavica Suecana, ser. A: 1. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvi-
tets Akademien, 2002.
BLACK, ROBERT. “The School Miscellany in Medieval and Renaissance Italy.” In:
CRISCI & PECERE 2004. 213–244.
BLANCHARD, ALAIN. “Choix antiques et codex.” Les débuts du codex. Actes de la
journée d’étude organisée à Paris les 3 et 4 juillet 1985 par l’Institut de Papyro-
logie de la Sorbonne et l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes. Ed.
Alain Blanchard. Bibliologia 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 1989. 181–190.
BLOCH, HERBERT. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. Vol. 1. Part One: Monte
Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages. Rome: Edizioni
di Storia e Letteratura, 1986. 1–112.
BLOIS, FRANÇOIS DE. Burz¶y’s Voyage to India and the Origin of the Book of Kal-
lah wa Dimnah. Prize publication fund 23. London: Royal Asiatic Society,
1990.
BOND, H. LAWRENCE. “Nicholas of Cusa from Constantinople to ‘Learned Igno-
rance:’ The Historical Matrix for the Formation of the De Docta Ignorantia.”
312
Bibliography
Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church: Essays in Memory of Chandler

McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society. Ed. Gerald Christianson &
Thomas M. Izbicki. Studies in the History of Christian Thought 71. Leiden:
Brill, 1996. 135–163.
BOTLEY, PAUL. “Learning Greek in Western Europe, 1476–1516.” In: HOLMES &
WARING 2002. 199–223.
BOUCHARD, JACQUES. ”L’aube des Lumières dans les pays roumains.” RH 2 (2005):
31–51.
BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ, AUGUSTE. Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité. Paris,
1879–1882.
BOURBOUHAKIS, EMMANUEL C. & INGELA NILSSON. “Byzantine Narrative: The
Form of Story-Telling in Byzantium.” Blackwell Companion to Byzantine Cul-
ture. Ed. Liz James. (forthcoming).
BRASWELL-MEANS, LAUREL. “The Popular Art of Geomancy in the Medieval West
and Contemporary Asia.” Journal of Popular Culture 23:4 (Spring 1990): 131–
43.
BRINKMANN, AUGUST. “Der älteste Briefsteller.” RhM 64 (1909): 310–317.
BRIQUET, CHARLES-MOÏSE. Les filigranes: Dictionnaire historique des marques du
papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600. Vol. 1–4. Ed. Allan Ste-
venson. Amsterdam, 1968 (facsimile of the 1907 ed.). [= Br.]
BRODERSEN, KAI. Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern. Frankfurt am Main:
Insel, 1992.
BROWE, PETER. Beiträge zur Sexualethik des Mittelalters. Breslauer Studien zur
historischen Theologie 23. Breslau: Müller & Seiffert, 1932.
BROWNING, ROBERT. “Teachers.” The Byzantines. Ed. Guglielmo Cavallo. Chicago:
U of Chicago P, 1997. 95–116.
BRUNDAGE, JAMES A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chi-
cago: U of Chicago P, 1987.
BRUNELLI, GIAMPIERO. “Este, Leonello d’.” DBI 43 (1993): 374–380.
BURKE, JOHN et al., eds. Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of Roger Scott. 14th
conference of the Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Melbourne, 13–
15 August 2004. Byzantina Australiensia 16. Melbourne: AABS, 2006.
CAETANI, GELASIO. “Caetani.” Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti. Vol
8. Ed. Giovanni Gentile & Calogero Tumminelli. Milan: Rizzoli, 1930. 250–
253.
CANIVET, PIERRE. Théodoret de Cyr. Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques. SC
57. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1958.
CAPPELLI, ADRIANO. “La Biblioteca Estense nella prima metà del secolo XV.” Gi-
ornale storico della letteratura italiana 14 (1889): 1–30.
CARTER, ROBERT E., ed. Codices Chrysostomici Graeci. Vol. 3: Codices Americae
et Europae occidentalis. Documents, études et répertoires 15. Paris: CNRS,
1970.
Catalogus centuriae librorum rarissimorum manuscript. & partim impressorum,
arabicorum, persicorum, turcicorum, graecorum, latinorum, &c. qua anno
MDCCV Bibliothecam Publicam Academiae Upsalensis auxit & exornavit vir il-
lustris & generosissimus Ioan. Gabr. Sparvenfeldius. Ed. [Erik Benzelius].
Uppsala: Joh. Henr. Werneri, 1706.
CAVALLO, GUGLIELMO & HERWIG MAEHLER. Introduction. Greek Bookhands of the
Early Byzantine Period: A.D. 300 – 800. Bulletin Supplement 47. London: Inst.
of Classical Studies, U of London, 1987. 1–6.
CAVALLO, GUGLIELMO & ROGER CHARTIER, eds. A History of Reading in the West.
Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane. Oxford: Polity, 1999.
313
Bibliography
CELENZA, CHRISTOPHER S. “Creating Canons in Fifteenth-Century Ferrara: Angelo

Decembrio’s ‘De politia litteraria,’ 1.10.” RenQ 57 (2004): 43–98.
CERQUIGLINI, BERNARD. Eloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie.
Travaux. Paris: Seuil, 1989.
CHAPMAN, JOHN. Studies on the Early Papacy. London: Sheed & Ward, [1928].
CHARDONNENS, LÁSZLÓ SÁNDOR. Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, 900–1100: Study and
Texts. Brill’s studies in intellectual history 153. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
CHARMASSON, THÉRÈSE. Recherches sur une technique divinatoire: La géomancie
dans l’occident médiéval. Hautes études médiévals et modernes 44. Geneva:
Droz, 1980.
CHOKSY, JAMSHEED KAIRSHASP. Purity and Pollution in Zoroastrianism: Triumph
over Evil. Austin: U of Texas P, 1989.
CHROUST, ANTON-HERMANN. “The Organization of the Corpus Platonicum in An-
tiquity.” Hermes 93 (1965): 34–46.
CICCOLELLA, FEDERICA. “Il carme anacreontico di Leone VI.” BollClass 10 (1989):
17–37.
CLAUSEN, W.V. et al. Appendix Vergiliana. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.
COHEN, SHAYE J.D. “Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism and Christianity.”
Women’s History and Ancient History. Ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy. Chapel Hill: U of
North Carolina P, 1991. 273–299.
CONDYLIS-BASSOUKOS, HÉLÈNE. Stéphanitès kai Ichnélatès, traduction grecque (XIe
siècle) du livre Kalla wa-Dimna d’Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (VIIIe siècle): Étude lexi-
cologique et littéraire. Académie Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres. Fonds
René Draguet 11. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.
CONLEY, THOMAS. “Greek Rhetorics After the Fall of Constantinople: An Introduc-
tion.” Rhetorica 18:3 (2000): 265–294.
COURTONNE, YVES. Saint Basile. Lettres. 3 vols. Budé. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1957–
1966.
COXE, A. CLEVELAND, ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7: Fathers of the Third
and Fourth Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
CRAWFORD, PATRICIA. “Attitudes to Menstruation in Seventeenth-Century Eng-
land.” P&P 91 (1981): 47–73.
CRIBIORE, RAFFAELLA. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 2007.
CRISCI, EDOARDO. “I più antichi codici miscellanei greci: Materiali per una rifles-
sione.” In: CRISCI & PECERE 2004. 109–144.
CRISCI, EDOARDO & ORONZO PECERE, eds. Il Codice miscellaneo: Tipologie e funzi-
oni. Atti del Convegno internazionale Cassino 14–17 maggio 2003. Segno e
testo 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
CUPANE, CAROLINA. “La magia a Bisanzio nel secolo XIV: Azione e reazione.” JÖB
29 (1980): 237–262.
DAGRON, GILBERT. “Das Firmament soll christlich werden: Zu zwei Seefahrtskalen-
dern des 10. Jahrhunderts.” Fest und Alltag in Byzanz. Ed. Günter Prinzing &
Dieter Simon. Munich: Beck, 1990. 145–156.
—. “Jamais le dimanche.” Eupsychia: Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler. Byzan-
tina Sorbonensia 16. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998. 165–175.
DANEZIS, GEORGE. Spaneas: Vorlage, Quellen, Versionen. MiscByzMon 31. Mu-
nich: Inst. für Byzantinistik u. neugriech. Philologie, 1987.
DANNENFELDT, KARL H. “The Pseudo-Zoroastrian Oracles in the Renaissance.”
Studies in the Renaissance 4 (1957): 7–30.
DARNTON, ROBERT. “What is the History of Books?” Books and Society in History.
Papers of the Association of College and Research Libraries Rare Books and
314
Bibliography
Manuscripts Preconference, 24–28 June 1980, Boston Massachusetts. Ed. Ken-

neth E. Carpenter. New York: Bowker, 1983. 3–26.
DARROUZÈS, JEAN. “Les manuscrits du monastère Sainte-Anastasie Pharmacolytria
de Chalcidique.” REB 12 (1954): 45–57.
—. “Ekthésis néa: manuel des pittakia du XIVe siècle.” REB 27 (1969): 5–127.
—. Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Géographie ecclési-
astique de l’Empire byzantine 1. Paris: CNRS, 1981.
DAUZAT, ALBERT. Traité d’anthroponymie française: Les noms de famille de
France. Bibliothèque Scientifique. Paris: Payot, 1949.
DAVIDSON, CATHY N. “Toward a History of Books and Readers.” Reading in Amer-
ica: Literature & Social History. Ed. Cathy N. Davidson. Baltimore: John Hop-
kins UP, 1989. 1–26.
DE GREGORIO, GIUSEPPE. “Studi su copisti greci del tardo Cinquecento I: Ancora
Manuel Malaxos.” Historische römische Mitteilungen 37 (1995): 98–144.
DEAN-JONES, LESLEY. “Menstrual Bleeding According to the Hippocratics and Aris-
totle.” TAPhA 119 (1989): 177–191.
DELAISSÉ, LÉON M. J. “Towards a History of the Mediaeval Book.” Divinitas 11
(1967): 423–435.
DELATTE, ARMAND. Anecdota Atheniensia. Vol. 1: Textes grecs inédits relatifs à
l’histoire des religions. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de
l’Université de Liège 36. Liège: Vailant-Carmanne, 1927.
—. Anecdota Atheniensia et alia. Vol. 2: Textes grecs relatifs à l’histoire des sci-
ences. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de
Liège 88. Paris: Droz, 1939.
DELATTE, ARMAND & LOUIS DELATTE. “Un traité byzantin de Géomancie (codex
Parisinus 2419).” Mélanges Franz Cumont. AIPHOS 4 (1936): 575–658.
DEMAITRE, LUKE. “The Description and Diagnosis of Leprosy by Fourteenth-
Century Physicians.” BHM 59 (1985): 327–344.
—. “Medieval Notions of Cancer: Malignancy and Metaphor.” BHM 72:4 (1998):
609–637.
DENNIS, GEORGE T. “Gregory of Nazianzus and the Byzantine Letter.” Diakonia:
Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer. Ed. Thomas Halton and Joseph P. Willi-
man. Washington, D.C.: Catholic U of America P, 1986. 3–13.
DEROLEZ, ALBERT. “Codicologie ou archéologie du livre? Quelques observations
sur la leçon inaugurale de M Albert Gruijs à l’Université Catholique de
Nimègue.” Scriptorium 27 (1973): 47–49.
DESROUSSEAUX, ALEXANDRE. “Sur quelques manuscrits d’Italie.” Mélanges
d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 6 (1886): 483–553, esp. 534–552.
DEVREESSE, ROBERT. Introduction à l’étude des manuscrits grecs. Paris: Klincksi-
eck, 1954.
DIELS, HERMANN. Die Handschriften der antiken Ärzte: im Auftrage der akademi-
sche Kommission. 2 vols. AbhBerlin. Berlin: Königl. Akad. d. Wissenschaften,
1905–1906.
DIETEN, JAN-LOUIS VAN. Entstehung und Überlieferung der Historia Rhomaike des
Nikephoros Gregoras, insbesondere des ersten Teiles: Lib. I–XI. Cologne: n.p.,
1975. [Diss.]
—. Nikephoros Gregoras. Rhomäische Geschichte: Historia Rhomaïke. 5 vols. Bib-
liothek der griechischen Literatur 4, 8–9, 24, 39 and 66. Stuttgart: Hiersemann,
1973–2007.
DODGE, BAYARD. The Fihrist of al-Nadm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Cul-
ture. Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies 83. New York: Columbia UP,
1970.
315
Bibliography
DOSITHEOS, OF JERUSALEM. >

X= $ . Jassy (Moldavia), 1698.
DOWNEY, GLANVILLE. “The Claim of Antioch to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over
Cyprus.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 102 (1958): 224–
228.
DRERUP, ENGELBERT. Isocratis opera omnia. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Weicher, 1906.
DUFFY, JOHN. “Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice
of Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos.”. In: MAGUIRE 1995. 83–97.
EBERHARD, ALFRED, ed. Fabulae romanenses Graece conscriptae. Vol. 1. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1872.
EISENSTEIN, ELIZABETH L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communica-
tions and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge UP, 1979.
EUBEL, CONRAD. Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi. Vol. 2: Ab anno
1431 usque ad annum 1503. Münster: Libraria Regensburgiana, 1914.
EVIEUX, PIERRE. “Isidore de Péluse: État des recherches.” Recherches de Science
Religieuse 64 (1976): 321–340.
FAHD, TOUFIC. “Kha.” Encyclopædia of Islam. Vol. 4. Ed. E. van Donzel, B. Lewis
& Ch. Pellat. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 1128–1130.
—. La divination arabe: études religieuses, sociologiques et folkloriques sur le
milieu natif de l’Islam. Leiden: Brill, 1966. [Diss.]
FALKENHAUSEN, VERA VON. “Cristodulo.” DBI 31 (1985): 49–51.
FEBVRE, LUCIEN AND HENRI-JEAN MARTIN. L’apparition du livre. L’évolution de
l’humanité 49. Paris: Albin Michel, 1958.
FENSTER, ERWIN. Laudes Constantinopolitanae. MiscByzMon 9. Munich: Inst. für
Byzantinistik u. neugriech. Philologie, 1968.
FERRARI, GIANNINO. “Formulari notarili inediti dell’età bizantina.” Bullettino
dell’Istituto storico italiano 33 (1913): 41–126.
FISCHER-MUELLER, AYDEET. “The Gnostic Female Principle in Its Fallenness.”
Novum Testamentum 32 (1990): 79–95.
FLACELIÈRE, ROBERT & ÉMILE CHAMBRY. Plutarque. Vies. Vol. 13: Démétrios –
Antoine. Budé. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1977.
FOERSTER, RICHARD. Libanii opera. 12 Vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1923.
FONROBERT, CHARLOTTE ELISHEVA. Menstrual purity: Rabbinic and Christian
Reconstructions of Biblical Gender. Contraversions. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
UP, 2000.
FOWLER, ALASTAIR. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres
and Modes. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.
FRANCESCHINI, ADRIANO. Giovanni Aurispa e la sua biblioteca: Notizie e docu-
menti. Padova: Antenore, 1976.
FRASER, PETER M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.
FREETH, TONY et al. “Decoding the Ancient Greek Astronomical Calculator Known
as the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 444 (30 November 2006), 587–591.
[doi:10.1038/nature05357]
FRINGS, HERMANN JOSEF. Medizin und Arzt bei den griechischen Kirchenvätern bis
Chrysostomos. Bonn: Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1959. [Diss.
1958]
FUBINI, RICCARDO. “Tra umanesimo e concili: Note e giunte a una pubblicazione
recente su Francesco Pizolpasso (1370 c.–1443).” StudMed 7 (1966): 323–370.
GALLAGHER, CATHERINE & STEPHEN GREENBLATT. Practicing New Historicism.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.
GALLAY, PAUL. Saint Grégoire de Nazianze. Lettres. 2 vols. Budé. Paris: Belles
Lettres, 1964–1967.
316
Bibliography
GALLO, ITALO. Greek and Latin Papyrology. Classical Handbook 1. London: Inst. of
Classical Studies, U of London, 1986.
GAMS, PIUS BONIFACIUS, ed. Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae, quotquot
innotuerunt a Beato Petro Apostolo. Regensburg: Manz, 1873.
GARNSEY, PETER. Thinking about Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolu-
tion. Ideas in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.
GARZYA, ANTONIO. “Testi letterari d’uso strumentale.” JÖB 31/1 (1981): 263–271.
GEANAKOPLOS, DENO J. Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1268–1282: A
Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1959.
—. Greek Scholars in Venice: Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from
Byzantium to Western Europe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1962.
—. “The Library of the Cretan Humanist-Bishop, Maximos Margounios, Especially
His Collection of Latin Books Bequeathed to Mount Athos.” %

`¸^"
¯

"

3 (¯ %#<). Athens: n.p.,
1968. 75–91.
—. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and
Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History. Hamden, Conn.:
Archon, 1976.
—. Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and
Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches. Madison: U of
Wisconsin P, 1989.
—. “A New Reading of the Acta, Especially Syropoulos.” Christian Unity: The
Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39–1989. Ed. Giuseppe Alberigo.
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 97. Leuven: Leuven
UP, 1991. 325–351.
GENCHEVA-MIKAMI, ISKRA. “Documentary Narrative: The Case of the Notitia Dig-
nitatum.” Abstract from the 14th conference of the Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, Melbourne, 13–15 August 2004 [Byzantine Narrative].
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~byzaus/conferences/14th2004/abstracts.html
GILL, JOSEPH. The Council of Florence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1959.
GLABINAS, APOSTOLOS. <
" * *
.
Thessalonica: Aristotle University, 1983.
GLEßGEN, MARTIN-DIETRICH & FRANZ LEBSANFT, eds. Alte und neue Philologie.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997.
GLYKAS, MICHAEL. @ $ X
Y * Y [#*. Vol. 1. Ed. Sophronios Eu-
stratiades. Athens: Sakellarios, 1906.
GOW, ANDREW S.F. & DENYS L. PAGE. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1965.
GRAFTON, ANTHONY. Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance
Readers. Jerome lectures 20. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1997.
GRAUX, CHARLES. Essai sur les origines du fonds grecs de l’Escurial. Bibliothèque
de l’École des hautes études. Sciences historiques et philologiques 46. Paris:
Vieweg, 1880.
—. Los origenes del fondo griego del Escorial. Ed. and trans. Gregorio de Andrés.
Madrid: Fundacion Universitaria, 1982.
GRAUX, CHARLES & ALBERT MARTIN. Notices sommaires des manuscrits grecs de
Suède. (Extrait des Archives des missions, 3e série, 15). Paris: Leroux, 1889.
—. Fac-similés de manusrits grecs d’Espagne. Paris, 1891.
GREEN, DENNIS H. Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of
German Literature 800–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
GREEN, MONICA H., ed. The Trotula: A Medieval Compendium of Women’s Medi-
cine. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2001.
317
Bibliography
GREENFIELD, RICHARD P.H. Traditions of Belief in Late Byzantine Demonology.

Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1988.
GREENSPAN, EZRA & JONATHAN ROSE. “An Introduction to Book History.” Book
History 1 (1998): ix–xi.
GRÉGOIRE, HENRI. “Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi De Vita sua.” B 29–30 (1959–
60): 447–476.
GRUIJS, ALBERT. “Codicology or the Archaeology of the Book? A False Dilemma.”
Quaerendo 2 (1972): 87–108.
GRÜNBART, MICHAEL. “Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioannes
Tzetzes.” JÖB 46 (1996): 175–226.
—. “Byzantinische Briefkultur.” Acta Antiqua Hungarica 47 (2007): 117–138.
GRUNEBAUM, GUSTAVE E. VON. “Parallelism, Convergence, and Influence in the
Relations of Arab and Byzantine Philosophy, Literature, and Piety.” DOP 18
(1964): 89–111.
GUÉRAUD, OCTAVE & PIERRE JOUGUET. Un livre d’écolier du IIIe siècle avant J.-C.
Publications de la Société Royale Égyptienne de Papyrologie 2. Cairo: Inst.
français d’archéologie orientale, 1938.
GUILLOU, ANDRÉ. Aspetti della civiltà bizantina in Italia: Società e cultura. Bari:
Ecumenica Editrice, 1976.
GUMBERT, J. PETER. “Ebert’s Codicology a Hundred and Fifty Years Old.”
Quaerendo 5 (1975): 336–339.
—. “C Catalogue and Codicology: Some Reader’s Notes.” A Catalogue and Its
Users: A Symposium on the Uppsala C Collection of Medieval Manuscripts. Ed.
Monica Hedlund. Acta Bibliothecae R. Universitatis Upsaliensis 34. Uppsala:
Norstedts, 1995. 57–70.
—. “One Book with Many Texts: The Latin Tradition.” Codices miscellanearum:
Brussels Van Hulthem Colloquium 1999. Ed. Ria Jansen-Sieben & Hans van
Dijk. Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique, Numéro spécial 60. Brussels, 1999.
27–36.
—. “Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy of the Non-
Homogeneous Codex.” In: CRISCI & PECERE 2004. 17–42.
GUTAS, DIMITRI. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation
Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbsid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries).
London: Routledge, 1998.
GUTZWILLER, KATHRYN J. Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context. Hel-
lenistic culture and society 28. Berkeley: U of California P, 1998.
HAMILTON, J.D.B. “The Church and the Language of Mystery: The First Four Cen-
turies.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 53 (1977): 479–494.
HAMMER, JOSEPH VON. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, grossentheils aus
bisher unbenützten Handschriften und Archiven. Vol. 1: Von der Gründung des
Osmanischen Reiches bis zur Eroberung Constantinopels, 1300–1453. Pest:
Hartleben, 1827.
HANNA, RALPH, III. “Booklets in Medieval Manuscripts: Further Considerations.”
Studies in Bibliography 39 (1986): 100–111.
—. Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and Their Texts. Figurae. Stan-
ford: Stanford UP, 1996.
HANSEN, WILLIAM F., ed. Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literature. Bloom-
ington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1998.
HARLFINGER, DIETER. Die Textgeschichte der Pseudo-Aristotelischen Schrift %¹º
»¬¼ [¹»¼: Ein kodikologisch-kulturgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur
Klärung der Überlieferungsverhältnisse im Corpus Aristotelicum. Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1971.
318
Bibliography
—. “Zur Datierung von Handschriften mit Hilfe von Wasserzeichen.” Griechische

Kodikologie und Textüberlieferung. Ed. Dieter Harlfinger. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980. 144–169.
HARLFINGER, DIETER & JOHANNA HARLFINGER. Wasserzeichen aus griechischen
Handschriften. 2 vols. Berlin: Mielke, 1974–1980. [= Ha.]
HATLIE, PETER. “Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography.” BMGS 20 (1996): 213–
248.
HAUSCHILD, WOLF-DIETER. Basilius von Caesarea. Briefe. 3 vols. Bibliothek der
griechischen Literatur 32; 3; 37. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1990; 1973; 1993.
HAUSER-MEURY, MARIE-MADELEINE. Prosopographie zu den Schriften Gregors
von Nazianz. Theophaneia 13. Bonn: Hanstein, 1960.
HAUSRATH, AUGUST & HERBERT HUNGER. Aesopus. Corpus fabularum Aesopica-
rum. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1956 and 1970.
HAYDUCK, MICHAEL. In Aristotelis libros de anima commentaria. Commentaria in
Aristotelem Graeca 15. Berlin: Reimer, 1897.
HEAWOOD, EDWARD. Watermarks mainly of the 17th and 18th centuries. Monu-
menta chartae papyraceae 1. Hilversum: Paper Publication Society,1950.
HEFELE, CARL JOSEPH. Conciliengeschichte: Nach den Quellen bearbeitet. Vol. 1.
Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder’sche, 1855.
HEIBERG, JOHAN LUDVIG, ed. Paulus Aegineta. CMG 9:1–2. Leipzig: Teubner,
1921–1924.
HEINIMANN, FELIX. “Diokles von Karystos und der prophylaktische Brief an König
Antigonos.” Museum Helveticum 12 (1955): 158–172.
HEINRICI, C. F. GEORG. Griechisch-Byzantinische Gesprächsbücher und Verwandtes
aus Sammelhandschriften. ASAW, phil.-hist. Klasse 28.8. Leipzig: Teubner,
1911.
HEISENBERG, AUGUST. Analecta: Mitteilungen aus italienischen Hss byzantinischer
Chronographen. Programm des K. Liutpold-Gymnasiums in München
1900/1901. Munich: Lindl, 1901.
HELLER, RICHARD M., TONI W. HELLER & JACK M. SASSON. “Mold: ‘Tsara'at,’
Leviticus, and the History of a Confusion.” Perspectives in Biology and Medici-
ne 46:4 (2003): 588–591.
HERTEL, JOHANNES. “Einzelbemerkungen zu den Texten des Pañcatantra”, Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25 (1911) 1–48.
HOHLWEG, ARMIN. “Astronomie und Geschichtsbetrachtung bei Nikephoros Grego-
ras.” Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit. Ed. Werner Seibt. Veröffentli-
chungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik 8. DenkWien 241. Vienna: ÖAW,
1996. 51–63.
HOLMAN, SUSAN R. “Healing the Social Leper in Gregory of Nyssa’s and Gregory
of Nazianzus’ ‘ }#
%_$.’” HTR 92 (1999): 283–309.
HOLMES, CATHERINE & JUDITH WARING, eds. Literacy, Education and Manuscript
Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond. The Medieval Mediterranean 42. Lei-
den: Brill, 2002.
HOLZBERG, NIKLAS. ”Der Äsop-Roman: eine strukturanalytische Interpretation.”
Der Äsop-Roman: Motivgeschichte und Erzählstruktur. Ed. Niklas Holzberg.
Classica Monacensia 6. Tübingen: Narr, 1992. 33–75.
—. “Der griechische Briefroman: Versuch einer Gattungstypologie.” Der griechi-
sche Briefroman: Gattungstypologie und Textanalyse. Ed. Niklas Holzberg &
Stefan Merkle. Classica Monacensia 8. Tübingen: Narr, 1994. 1–52.
HOPFNER, THEODOR. Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber. Vol. 1. Studien
zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde 21. Leipzig: Haessel, 1921.
319
Bibliography
HÖRANDNER, WOLFRAM. Der Prosarhythmus in der rhetorischen Literatur der

Byzantiner. WByzSt 16. Vienna: ÖAW, 1981.
HORST, KOERT VAN DER. “The reliability of watermarks.” GLM 15 (1989): 15–19.
HÜBNER, WOLFGANG. Zodiacus Christianus: jüdisch-christliche Adaptationen des
Tierkreises von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Beiträge zur klassischen Philolo-
gie 144. Königstein/Ts.: Hain, 1983.
HUIZINGA, JOHAN. Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen: Studie over levens- en gedachten-
vormen der veertiende en vijftiende eeuw in Frankrijk en de Nederlanden. Haar-
lem: Tjeenk Willink, 1919.
HUNGER, HERBERT. “Johannes Chortasmenos, ein byzantinischer Intellektueller der
späten Palaiologenzeit.” Festschrift K. Mras. Wiener Studien 70 (1957): 153–63.
—. Johannes Chortasmenos (ca. 1370–ca. 1436/37): Briefe, Gedichte und kleine
Schriften. Einleitung, Regesten, Prosopographie, Text. WByzSt 7. Vienna: Böh-
lau, 1969.
—. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. 2 vols. HAW 12 (Byzan-
tinisches Handbuch 5:1–2). Munich: Beck, 1978.
—. Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz: die Byzantinische Buchkultur. Beck’s Archäolo-
gische Bibliothek. Munich: Beck, 1989.
HUNGER, HERBERT et al. Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichi-
schen Nationalbibliothek. Museion. Neue Folge, Reihe 4. Vienna: Hollinek,
1961– .
HUSSELMAN, ELINOR. “A Fragment of Kalilah and Dimnah from MS. 397 in The
Pierpont Morgan Library.” Studies and Documents 10 (1939): 3–35.
IANZITI, GARY. “Leonardo Bruni: First Modern Historian?” Parergon ns 14.2
(1997): 85–99.
IBN KHALDÛN. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Vol. 1. Trans. Franz
Rosenthal. Bollingen Series 43. New York: Pantheon, 1958.
IERODIAKONOU, KATERINA, ed. Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources. Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 2002.
JAKOBI, CHRISTINE. Buchmalerei: ihre Terminologie in der Kunstgeschichte. Berlin:
Reimer, 1991.
JAMES, CARLO et al. Old Master Prints and Drawings: A Guide to Preservation and
Conservation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 1997.
JANIN, RAYMOND. La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. Vol. 1. Paris:
Institut français d’études byzantines, 1969.
JANSEN-SIEBEN, R. & HANS VAN DIJK, eds. Codices miscellanearum: Brussels Van
Hulthem Colloquium 1999. Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique, Numéro spé-
cial 60. Brussels: Archives et Bibliothèques de Belgique, 1999.
JAULIN, ROBERT. La géomancie: Analyse formelle. Cahiers de L’Homme ns 4. Paris:
Mouton, 1966.
JEFFREYS, ELIZABETH, ed. Rhetoric in Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-fifth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford,
March 2001. Publications for the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine studies
11. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2003.
KALVESMAKI, JOEL. “Types of Greek Numerology.” Lecture. Washington, D.C.:
American Academy of Religion, 2006. Website: The Theology of Arithmetic.
Ed. Joel Kalvesmaki. 26 Aug. 2008
<http://www.kalvesmaki.com/Arithmetic/GreekNumerology.html>.
KAPP, FRIEDRICH. Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels bis in das siebzehnte
Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Börsenverein der Deutschen Buchhändler, 1886.
320
Bibliography
KARAMANOLIS, GEORGE. “Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle.” Byzantine Philoso-

phy and its Ancient Sources. Ed. Katerina Ierodiakonou. Oxford: Clarendon,
2002. 253–282.
KARLA, GRAMMATIKI A. Vita Aesopi: Überlieferung, Sprache und Edition einer
frühbyzantinischen Fassung des Äsopromans. Serta Graeca 13. Wiesbaden: Rei-
chert, 2001.
KARLSSON, GUSTAV. Idéologie et cérémonial dans l’épistolographie byzantine.
Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 3. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1962.
KASSEL, RUDOLF. Der Text der aristotelischen Rhetorik: Prolegomena zu einer
kritischen Ausgabe. Peripatoi 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971.
KATSAROS, VASSILIS. “7
¬ % ‘= %$ #<
_$’
% "
.” In:
ODORICO & AGAPITOS 2002. 95–106.
KELLER, A. “Two Byzantine Scholars and Their Reception in Italy.” JWarb 20
(1957): 363–370.
KENNEDY, GEORGE A. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton UP, 1983.
—. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to
Modern Times. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1999.
KERN, OTTO, ed. Orphicorum fragmenta. Berlin: Weidmann, 1922.
KEYSER, PAUL T. “Numerology and Text in Anatolios of Laodikaia.” Philologus 150
(2006): 38–42.
KIBRE, PEARL & NANCY G. SIRAISI. “Matheolus of Perugia’s Commentary on the
Preface to the Aphorisms of Hippocrates.” BHM 49 (1975): 405–428.
KINDSTRAND, JAN FREDRIK. Anacharsis: The Legend and the Apophthegmata.
Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 16. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1981.
KING, HELEN. “Bound to Bleed: Artemis and Greek Women.” Sexuality and Gender
in the Classical World. Ed. Laura K. McGuire. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. 77–97.
KIRSTEIN, ROBERT. “Companion Pieces in the Hellenistic Epigram.” Hellenistic
Epigrams. Ed. M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit, & G.C. Wakker. Hellenistica Gronin-
gana 6. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. 113–135.
KITROMILIDES, PASCHALIS M. “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlight-
enment.” The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern Christianity.
Ed. Michael Angold. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. 187–209.
KLAWANS, JONATHAN. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford UP,
2000.
KLEBS, ARNOLD C. “Incunabula Scientifica et Medica: Short Title List.” Osiris 4
(1938): 1–359.
KLEIN, JAN WILLEM. “(Middelnederlandse) handschriften: productieomstandig-
heden, soorten, functies.” Queeste 2 (1995): 1–30.
KLIJN, A. FREDERIK J., ed. Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV.Esra) nach dem lateinischen
Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen. GCS. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1992.
KNIGHT, CHRIS. Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture. New
Haven: Yale UP, 1991.
KNÖS, BÖRJE. “Gémiste Pléthon et son souvenir.” BAGB 9 (1950): 97–184.
KOCK, THOMAS. Die Buchkultur der Devotio moderna: Handschriftenproduktion,
Literaturversorgung und Bibliotheksaufbau im Zeitalter des Medienwechsels.
Tradition, Reform, Innovation 2. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1999. [Diss. Mün-
ster]
KOREN, SHARON FAYE. “Kabbalistic Physiology: Isaac the Blind, Nahmanides, and
Moses de Leon on Menstruation.” AJS Review 28 (2004): 317–339.
321
Bibliography
KRISTELLER, PAUL OSKAR. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. New York: Co-
lumbia UP, 1979.
KRUMBACHER, KARL. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur von Justinian bis
zum Ende des oströmischen Reiches (527–1453). HAW 9:1. Munich: Beck,
1897.
KUSTAS, GEORGE L. Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. Analekta Vlatadon 17. Thessa-
lonica: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1973.
KWAKKEL, ERIK. “Towards a Terminology for the Analysis of Composite Manu-
scripts.” Gazette du livre médiéval 41 (automne 2002): 12–19.
LAM, LAY YONG. “The Development of Hindu-Arabic and Traditional Chinese
Arithmetic.” Chinese Science 13 (1996): 35–54.
LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE. History of Turkey. Vol. 2. New York: Appleton, 1857.
LAMPROS, SPYRIDON. ")|
"½

"½
$ ¾ . 2 vols. Ath-
ens, 1879–80 (repr. Groningen: Bouma, 1968).
—. “°´$ =¯ @
³ *# %

# %.”
. 5
(1908): 190–269.
—. “¢ ¯ %.”
. 11 (1914): 57–93.
LAMPSIDES, ODYSSEUS. µ
/"`
`Y
+ ¨. £<
¯ Á
Ó

##ò%
^ £×
1 (|_ £

7). Athens:
¤
£
° #
, 1975.
—. “Les ‘gnomologia’ tirés de la chronique de K. Manasses.” B 55 (1985): 118–
145.
—, ed. Constantini Manassis Breviarium chronicum. CFHB 36. Athens: Academy
of Athens, 1996.
LANGKAVEL, BERNHARD. Botanik der spaeteren Griechen: Vom dritten bis drei-
zehnten Jahrhunterte. Berlin: Berggold, 1866.
LAURENT, MARIA-HYACINTHUS & ANDRÉ GUILLOU. Le “Liber Visitationis” d’
Athanase Chalkéopoulos (1457–1458): Contribution à l’histoire du monachisme
grec en Italie méridionale. Studi e Testi 206. Vatican City: n.p., 1960.
LAUXTERMANN, MARC D. Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres. WByzSt 24.
Wien: ÖAW, 2003.
LEMAY, HELEN RODNITE, ed. Women’s Secrets: A Translation of Pseudo-Albertus
Magnus’s De Secretis Mulierum with Commentaries. SUNY series in medieval
studies. Albany: State U of New York P, 1992.
LEMERLE, PAUL. Le premier humanisme byzantin: notes et remarques sur enseigne-
ment et culture à Byzance des origines au 10e siècle. Bibliothèque byzantine.
Études 6. Paris: PUF, 1971.
LEONE, PIETRO L.M. Nicephori Gregorae epistulae. 2 vols. Matino: Tip. di Matino,
1982–83.
LEWIS, ROBERT E. Introduction. Lotario dei Segni (Pope Innocent III). De miseria
condicionis humanae. Ed. Robert E. Lewis. The Chaucer library 1. London:
Scolar P, 1980 (Athens: U of Georgia P, 1978). 1–90.
LITTA, POMPEO. Le famiglie celebri italiane. Vol. X: I Savelli di Roma. Turin: Liv-
erani, 1872.
LIVANOS, CHRISTOPHER. Greek Tradition and Latin Influence in the Work of George
Scholarios. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias P, 2006.
LOENERTZ, RAYMOND-JOSEPH. “Emmanuelis Raul Epistulae XII.” 26 (1956):
130–163.
LOHR, CHARLES H. “Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors So–Z.”
RenQ 35 (1982): 164–256.
LOTARIO DEI SEGNI (Innocent III). De miseria humane conditionis. Ed. Michele
Maccarrone. Thesaurus mundi. Lugano: Thesaurus Mundi, 1955.
322
Bibliography
LUNDSTRÖM, VILHELM. Anecdota byzantina e codicibus Upsaliensibus. Collectio

scriptorum veterum Upsaliensis 1. Uppsala: n.p., 1902.
—. “De codicibus graecis olim Escorialensibus, qui nunc Upsaliae adseruantur.”
Eranos 2 (1897): 1–7.
LYOTARD, JEAN-FRANÇOIS. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Trans. Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi. Theory and History of Literature
10. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2005.
MACRIDES, RUTH. “What’s in the Name ‘Megas Komnenos?’” Archeion Pontou 35
(1979): 238–245.
—. “The Thirteenth Century in Byzantine Historical Writing.” Porphyrogenita.
Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour
of Julian Chrysostomides. Ed. Charalambos Dendrinos et al. Aldershot: Ash-
gate, 2003. 63–76.
MAGDALINO, PAUL. The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1993.
—. “The Byzantine Reception of Classical Astrology.” In: HOLMES & WARING
2002. 33–57.
—. L’orthodoxie des astrologues: la science entre le dogme et la divination à
Byzance, VIIe-XIVe siècle. Réalités Byzantines 12. Paris: Lethielleux, 2006.
MAGDALINO, PAUL & MARIA V. MAVROUDI, eds. The Occult Sciences in Byzantium.
Geneva: Pomme d’or, 2006.
MAGUIRE, HENRY, ed. Byzantine Magic. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Library and Collection, 1995.
MALTESE, ENRICO V. Georgii Gemisti Plethonis, Contra Scholarii pro Aristotele
Obiectiones. Leipzig: Teubner, 1988.
MANDILARAS, BASIL G. Isocrates. Opera omnia. 3 vols. BT. Munich: Saur, 2003.
MANOUSSACAS, MANOUSSOS. “Calceopulo, Attanasio.” DBI 16 (1973): 515–517.
MANSI, JOANNES DOMINICUS, ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collec-
tio. Vol. II. Florence, 1759.
MARKOPOULOS, ATHANASIOS. “Education.” The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine
Studies. Ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys, John Haldon & Robin Cormack. Oxford: Oxford
UP, 2008. 785–795.
MASAI, FRANÇOIS. Pléthon et le Platonisme de Mistra. Les classiques de
l’humanisme. Études 5. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1956.
MASAI, R. & F. “L’oeuvre de Georges Gémiste Pléthon: Rapport sur des trouvailles
récentes, autographes et traités inédits.” BAB 40 (1954): 536–555.
MASTRODEMETRES, PANAGIOTES D. “|\
"<}$ . ^ @

# |. °
.” 33 (1964): 241–257.
—. “# ^ \
@
#¬.” 34 (1965): 202–207 (+ 2
plates).
—. ">

"> (1402–1464)'
+ ¨
. "#=¬ }$ .
# 9. Athens: U of Athens, 1970.
MATRANGA, PIETRO. Anecdota Graeca e MSS. Bibliothecis Vaticana, Angelica,
Barberiniana, Vallicelliana, Medicea, Vindobonensi deprompta. 2 vols. Rome:
Bertinelli, 1850.
MAUPOIL, BERNARD. La géomancie à l’ancienne Côte des Esclaves. Travaux et
mémoires de l’Institut d’ethnologie 42. Paris: Inst. d’ethnologie, 1988.
MAZAL, OTTO. Handbuch der Byzantinistik. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlag-
sanstalt, 1989.
MCCLURE, JUDITH & ROGER COLLINS, eds. Bede. The Ecclesiastical History of the
English People. World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994.
323
Bibliography
MCCOWN, CHESTER CHARLTON. The Testament of Solomon. Untersuchungen zum

Neuen Testament 9. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922.
MCGOWAN, JOHN. “Postmodernism.” The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory
and Criticism. Ed. Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth & Imre Szeman. Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins UP, 2005. 768–771.
MERCATI, GIOVANNI. “Intorno al Pap. Oxyrh. 1603 e all’ Omelia dello Pseudo-
Grisostomo In decollationem S. Ioannis Baptistae et in Herodiadem.” Biblica 2
(1921): 229–239.
—. “Intorno alla elegia di Michele Acominato sulla decadenza della citta di Atene.”
@
/
. Athens: Hestia, 1935. 423–427.
MERCURIALIS, HIERONYMUS. De morbis muliebribus libri IV. In: SPACHIUS 1597.
209–303.
MERGIALI-FALANGA, SOFIA. L’enseignement et les lettres pendant l’époque des
Paléologues (1261–1453). \

$ 5. Athens: õ
Ó

% }Ó#%
#Ô, 1996.
METZGER, BRUCE M. “The Fourth Book of Ezra.” The Old Testament Pseudepi-
grapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 1, ed. James H.
Charlesworth. London: Darton, 1983. 516–559.
METZLER, IRINA. Disability in Medieval Europe: Thinking About Physical Impair-
ment During the High Middle Ages, c. 1100–1400. Routledge Studies in Medie-
val Religion and Culture. London: Routledge, 2006.
MILLER, TIMOTHY S. & RACHEL SMITH-SAVAGE. “Medieval Leprosy Reconsid-
ered.” International Social Science Review 81 (2006): 16–28.
MOFFATT, ANN. “The Letters of Theophylaktos Simokatta, a ‘scriptor non iniucun-
dus.’” Seventh Annual Byzantine Studies Conference: Abstracts of Papers. Bos-
ton: Boston U, 1981. 13.
—. “The After-Life of the the Letters of Theophyklatos Simokatta.” Maistor: Clas-
sical, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning. Ed. Ann Mof-
fatt. Australian Association for Byzantine Studies 5. Canberra: AABS, 1984.
345–358.
MOHLER, LUDWIG. Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann:
Funde und Forschungen. Vol. 1: Darstellung. Quellen und Forschungen 20. Pa-
derborn: Schöningh, 1923.
—. Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsman. Vol. 3: Aus Bessa-
rions Gelehrtenkreis: Abhandlungen, Reden, Briefe. Quellen und Forschungen
24. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1942.
MOMIGLIANO, ARNALDO. “Una lettera a Claudio e una lettera ad Antigono Gonata.”
Athenaeum 11 (1933): 128–135.
MONACO, GIUSTO. “Constantini Siculi anacreonticum carmen |>
#=%.” La parola del passato 6 (1951): 457–463.
MONFASANI, JOHN. George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric
and Logic. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 1. Leiden: Brill, 1976.
—. “Testi inediti di Bessarione e Teodoro Gaza.” Dotti bizantini e libri greci
nell’Italia del secolo XV. Atti del Convegno internazionale Trento 22–23 ottobre
1990. Ed. Mariarosa Cortesi & Enrico V. Maltese. Collectanea 6. Naples:
D’Auria, 1992. 231–256 (+ 6 plates).
—. Nicolaus Scutellius, O.S.A., as Pseudo-Pletho: The Sixteenth-Century Treatise
Pletho in Aristotelem and the Scribe Michael Martinus Stella. Florence:
Olschki, 2005.
MORAUX, PAUL et al. Aristoteles Graecus: die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristo-
teles. Vol. 1: Alexandrien-London. Peripatoi 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.
324
Bibliography
MOULAKIS, ATHANASIOS. “Leonardo Bruni’s Constitution of Florence,” Rinasci-

mento, ns 26 (1986): 141–190.
MULLETT, MARGARET. “The Classical Tradition in the Byzantine Letter.” Byzantium
and the classical tradition. University of Birmingham Thirteenth Spring sympo-
sium of Byzantine Studies, 1979. Ed. Margaret Mullett & Roger Scott. Bir-
mingham: Centre for Byzantine studies, U of Birmingham, 1981. 75–93.
—. “Aristocracy and Patronage in the Literary Circles of Comnenian Constan-
inople.” The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries. Ed. Michael Angold.
British Archaeological Reports. International series 221. Oxford: BAR, 1984.
173–201.
—. “Food for the Spirit and a Light for the Road: Reading the Bible in the Life of
Cyril Phileotes by Nicholas Kataskepenos.” In: HOLMES & WARING 2002. 139–
164.
—. “Novelization in Byzantium: Narrative after the Revival of Fiction.” In: BURKE
2006. 1–28.
MUNK OLSEN, BIRGER. “L’élément codicologique.” Recherches de codicologie
comparée: La composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident.
Ed. Philippe Hoffmann. Collection Bibliologie. Paris: École normale supérieure,
1998. 105–129.
MUSALLAM, BASIM. Sex and Society in Islam: Birth Control before the Nineteenth
Century. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1983.
MUZERELLE, DENIS. Vocabulaire codicologique: Répertoire méthodique des termes
français relatifs aux manuscrits. Rubricae 1. Paris: Éditions CEMI, 1985.
NEEDHAM, JOSEPH. “Astronomy in Ancient and Medieval China.” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physi-
cal Sciences 276 (1974): 67–82.
NEWTON, FRANCIS. The Scriptorium and Library at Monte Cassino, 1058–1105.
Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 7. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1999.
NICHOLS, STEPHEN G. “The New Philology. Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript
Culture.” Speculum 65/1 (1990): 1–10.
NICHOLS, STEPHEN G. & SIEGFRIED WENZEL, eds. The Whole Book: Cultural Per-
spectives on the Medieval Miscellany. Recentiores. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan
P, 1996.
NIEHOFF, JOHANNES, “Polyglottes Mittelalter. Mediterrane Volksreligion und christ-
licher Rahmenbezug in den Übersetzungen von Kalãla wa-Dimna.” Mittellatei-
nisches Jahrbuch 30:2 (1995) 77–97.
NIEHOFF-PANAGIOTIDIS, JOHANNES. Übersetzung und Rezeption: Die byzantinisch-
neugriechischen und spanischen Adaptionen von Kalla wa-Dimna. Serta Grae-
ca 18. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2003.
NILSSON, INGELA. “Narrating Images in Byzantine Literature: The Ekphraseis of
Konstantinos Manasses.” JÖB 55 (2005): 121–146.
—. “To Narrate Events of the Past: On Byzantine Historians and Historians on
Byzantium.” In: BURKE 2006. 47–58.
NILSSON, INGELA & EVA NYSTRÖM. “To Compose, Read, and Use a Byzantine Text:
Aspects of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses.” BMGS 33:1 (2009): 42–60.
NISETICH, FRANK. “The Poems of Posidippus.” Ed. Kathryn J. Gutzwiller. The New
Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. 17–64.
NISSEN, THEODOR. “Die Briefe des Theophylaktos Simokattes und ihre lateinische
Übersetzung durch Nikolaus Coppernicus.” BNJ 13 (1937): 17–56.
NUTTON, VIVIAN. Ancient Medicine. London: Routledge, 2004.
325
Bibliography
ÖBERG, JAN. Formularia Lincopensia: zwei spätmittelalterliche Briefsteller aus dem

Bistum Linköping (Cod. Upsal. C 204). Textkritische Gesamtausgabe mit Einlei-
tung und Register. Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 40. Stockholm: Acta Univer-
sitatis Stockholmiensis, 1997.
ODORICO, PAOLO. Il prato e l’ape: il sapere sentenzioso del monaco Giovanni.
WByzSt 17. Vienna: ÖAW, 1986.
—. La cultura della ##<¬: 1) Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino 2) Le tavole
del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno.” BZ 83 (1990): 1–21.
ODORICO, PAOLO & PANAGIOTIS A. AGAPITOS, eds. Pour une “nouvelle” histoire de
la littérature byzantine: problèmes, méthodes, approches, propositions. Actes
du Colloque international philologique Nicosie-Chypre 25–28 mai 2000. Dossi-
ers byzantins 1. Paris: De Boccard (E.H.E.S.S., Centre d’études byzantines, néo-
helléniques et sud-est européennes), 2002.
PADE, MARIANNE. “Guarino and Caesar at the Court of the Este.” La Corte di
Ferrara e il suo Mecenatismo 1441–1598. Ed. Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Pe-
tersen & Daniela Quarta. Renæssance studier 4. Copenhagen: MT, 1990. 71–91.
PAPADAKIS, ARISTEIDES & JOHN MEYENDORFF. The Christian East and the Rise of
the Papacy: The Church 1071–1453 A.D. The Church in history 4. Crestwood,
N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary P, 1994.
PAPADOYANNAKIS, IANNIS. “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late
Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis.” Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dy-
namism, Didacticism, Classicism. Ed. Scott F. Johnson. Aldershot: Ashgate,
2006. 91–106.
PAPPAS, NICHOLAS C. J. “Stradioti: Balkan Mercenaries in Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Century Italy.” Sam Houston State University, n.d. 15 Oct. 2008
<http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html>.
PARÉ, AMBROISE. Des monstres et prodiges. Ed. Jean Céard. Geneva: Droz, 1971
(editio princeps 1573).
PAREDI, ANGELO. La biblioteca del Pizolpasso. Milan: Hoepli, 1961.
PASQUALI, GIORGIO. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. 2nd ed. Florence:
Monnier, 1952.
PATTERSON, LEE, ed. Literary Practice and Social Change in Britain, 1380–1530.
The New Historicism: Studies in Cultural Poetics 8. Berkeley: U of California
P, 1990.
PECK, ARTHUR L. Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Loeb 366. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard UP, 1979.
PELLETIER, ANDRÉ. Flavius Josèphe. Guerre des juifs. Budé. Paris: Belles Lettres,
1975– .
PELOSI, OLIMPIA. Lusignan’s Chorography and Brief General History of the Island
of Cyprus (A.D. 1573). Sources for the History of Cyprus, 10. Altamont, N.Y.:
Greece and Cyprus Research Center, 2001.
PERCIVAL, HENRY R., ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of
the Christian Church. Ser. 2. Vol. 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the
Undivided Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
PERRIN, BERNADOTTE, trans. Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives. Vol. 2: Themistocles and
Camillus; Aristides and Cato Major; Cimon and Lucullus. Loeb. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard UP, 1914.
PERRY, BEN EDWIN. “The Text Tradition of the Greek Life of Aesop.” TAPhA 64
(1933): 198–244.
—. Studies in the Text History of the Life and Fables of Aesop. Philological Mono-
graphs 7. Haverford: APhA, 1936.
326
Bibliography
—. Aesopica: A Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to Him. Vol. 1: Greek

and Latin Texts. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1952.
PETERS, EDWARD & WALTER P. SIMONS. “The New Huizinga and The Old Middle
Ages.” Speculum 74 (1999): 587–620.
PETIT, LOUIS. “Acolouthie de Marc Eugénicos Archeveque d’Éphese.” SBN 2
(1927): 195–235.
PETIT, LOUIS, X.A. SIDERIDÈS & MARTIN JUGIE. Œuvres complètes de George
Scholarios. 8 vols. Paris: Bonne Presse, 1928–35.
PETRUCCI, ARMANDO. “Dal libro unitario al libro miscellaneo.” Tradizione dei
classici, trasformazioni della cultura (=Vol. 4 of Società romana e impero tar-
doantico). Ed. Andrea Giardina. Bari: Laterza, 1986. 173–87, 271–74 and pls.
40–48.
—. Introduzione. Il Codice miscellaneo: Tipologie e funzioni. In: CRISCI & PECERE
2004. 3–16.
PHRANTZOLES, KONSTANTINOS G., ed. ÁY
(#Y
Ã
¨, vol. 6. Thes-
salonica: "×#
£<Ó, 1995.
PHIPPS, WILLIAM E. “The Menstrual Taboo in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.” Jour-
nal of Religion and Health 19:4 (1980): 298–303.
PICCARD, GERHARD. Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard im Hauptstaatsarchiv Stutt-
gart: Findbuch. Veröffentlichungen der Staatlichen Archivverwaltung Baden-
Württemberg. Sonderreihe. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1961– . [= Pi.]
PIGNANI, ADRIANA. “Strutture compositive delle epistole ‘morali’ di Teofilatto Si-
mocata.” Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Napoli n.s.
22 (1979–80): 51–59.
PINGREE, DAVID. From Astral Omens to Astrology from Babylon to Bkner. Serie
Orientale Roma 78. Rome: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 1997.
PINTO, EMILIO, ed. Johannes Cananus. De Constantinopolis obsidione. Collana di
studi greci 47. Naples: Libreria Scientifica, 1968.
PITARAKIS, BRIGITTE. “Objects of Devotion and Protection.” Byzantine Christianity.
Ed. Derek Krueger. A People’s History of Christianity 3. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2006. 164–181.
POLLASTRI, SYLVIE, ed. Inventarium Honorati Gaietani: L’inventario dei beni di
Onorato II Gaetani d’Aragona 1491–1493. Trascrizione di Cesare Ramadori
(1939) revisione critica, introduzione e aggiunte di Sylvie Pollastri. Documenti
dell’archivio Caetani. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2006.
PONTIERI, ERNESTO. “Orsini Del Balzo.” Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed
arti. Vol 25. Ed. Giovanni Gentile. Milan: Rizzoli, 1935. 611.
PONTIKOS, ILIAS. !
"

#"$ ! ": A Miscellany in the Tradition
of Michael Psellos (Codex Baroccianus 131). Corpus Philosophorum Medii
Aevi 6. Athens: Academy of Athens, 1992.
PREISENDANZ, KARL. Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri.
Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973–74 (Leip-
zig, 1928–1931).
PRETE, SESTO. Decimi Magni Ausonii Burdigalensis Opuscula. BT. Leipzig: Teub-
ner, 1978.
PREUS, ANTHONY. “Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory.” JHB 10
(1977): 65–85.
Prolegomena ad librum: »ºÅ + ºÅ/»Å e cod. mscr. biblioth.
acad. Upsal. edita et Latine versa. Diss. [Praes. Johannes Floderus, Resp. Petrus
Fabian Aurivillius]. Uppsala, 1780.
327
Bibliography
PUNTONI, VITTORIO. StephanitÆs kai IchnÆlatÆs: quattro recensioni della versione

greca del Kitb Kalla wa-Dimna. Pubblicazioni della Società asiatica italiana 2.
Florence, 1889.
QUASTEN, JOHANNES. Patrology. Vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Litera-
ture: From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon. Utrecht: Spec-
trum, 1960.
RABE, HUGO. “Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften: Griechische Briefsteller.” RhM 64
(1909): 284–309.
RADT, STEFAN. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 4. Göttingen: Vandenho-
eck & Ruprecht, 1977.
RAKOCZY, THOMAS. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter: eine Unter-
suchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Classica Monacen-
sia 13. Tübingen: Narr, 1996. [Diss. Munich]
The Random House College Dictionary. Revised edition. New York: Random
House, 1988.
RAPHAEL, LUTZ. Die Erben von Bloch und Febvre: Annales-Geschichtsschreibung
und nouvelle histoire in Frankreich 1945–1980. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1994.
REGOURD, ANNE. “al-Fasl fî usûl 'ilm al-raml d’al-Zanâtî: au sujet des sources
manuscrites des impressions du Caire.” Annales Islamologiques 35 (2001): 393–
407.
REUTERS, FRANZ HEINRICH. De Anacharsidis epistulis. Bonn: Friedrich Wilhelms-
Univ., 1957. [Diss.]
—. Die Briefe des Anacharsis. Schriften und Quellen der alten Welt 14. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1963.
REVILLA, R. ALEJO. Catalogo de los Códices Griegos de la Bibliotheca de
l’Escorial. Vol. 1. Madrid: Helénica, 1936.
RHOBY, ANDREAS. “Aspekte des Fortlebens des Gregor von Nazianz in byzantini-
scher und postbyzantinischer Zeit.” Theatron: Rhetorische Kultur in Spätantike
und Mittelalter. Ed. Michael Grünbart. Millennium-Studien 13. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2007. 409–417.
RICHARD, MARCEL. “Florilèges grecs.” DSp 5 (1964): 475–512.
RICHARDS, PETER. The Medieval Leper and his Northern Heirs. Cambridge: Brewer,
1977.
Richtlinien Handschriftenkatalogisierung. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Unte-
rausschuss für Handschriftenkatalogisierung. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1992.
http://www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/hs/kataloge/HSKRICH.htm
ROBBINS, FRANK EGLESTON, ed. Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos. Loeb 435. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard UP, 1940.
ROBERTS, ALEXANDER & JAMES DONALDSON, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Trans-
lations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1978–.
ROBERTS, R. J. “The Greek Press at Constantinople in 1627 and Its Antecedents.”
The Library 22 (1967): 13–43.
ROBINSON, PAMELA R. “The ‘Booklet:’ A Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manu-
scripts.” Codicologica 3 (1980): 46–69.
RONCONI, FILIPPO. “Per una tipologia del codice miscellaneo greco in epoca medio-
bizantina.” In: CRISCI & PECERE 2004. 145–182.
—. I manoscritti greci miscellanei: Ricerche su esemplari dei secoli IX–XII. Testi,
Studi, Strumenti 21. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2007.
ROSCHER, WILHELM H. Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl. Studien zur
Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 6. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1913.
328
Bibliography
ROSENMEYER, PATRICIA A. The Poetics of Imitation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

1992.
—. “The Epistolary Novel.” Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context. Ed. J.R.
Morgan & Richard Stoneman. London: Routledge, 1994. 146–165.
—. Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge UP, 2001.
ROSENQVIST, JAN OLOF. The Hagiographic Dossier of St Eugenios of Trebizond in
Codex Athous Dionysiou 154. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 5. Uppsala: Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1996.
—. Die Byzantinische Literatur: vom 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels
1453. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007.
RUBIN, JOAN SHELLEY. “What Is the History of the History of Books?” Journal of
American History 90/2 (2003): 555–575.
(URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3659444)
RUDBERG, STIG Y. Études sur la tradition manuscrite de saint Basile. Lund: n.p.,
1953.
—. “Der Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8: eine inhaltsreiche Miszellanhandschrift.”
Probleme der neugriechischen Literatur 3. Berliner Byzantinistische Arbeiten
16. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960. 3–9.
RUSSELL, DONALD A. Greek Declamation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
—. Libanius. Imaginary Speeches: A Selection of Declamations. London:
Duckworth, 1996.
RYDÉN, LENNART, ed. The Life of St Andrew the Fool. Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia
4: 1–2. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1995.
RYDER, ALAN. The kingdom of Naples under Alfonso the Magnanimous: The Mak-
ing of a Modern State. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.
—. Alfonso the Magnanimous: King of Aragon, Naples and Sicily, 1396–1458. Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1990.
SAKALIS, DIMITRIOS TH. º
=
"
: Ç
"" " ".
Ioannina: Panepistimio, 1989.
SARGOLOGOS, ÉTIENNE. La vie de Saint Cyrille le Philéote moine byzantine. Brus-
sels: Société des Bollandistes, 1964.
SAVAGE-SMITH, EMILIE & MARION B. SMITH. Islamic Geomancy and a Thirteenth-
Century Divinatory Device. Studies in Near Eastern Culture and Society.
Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1980.
SCHEDEL, HARTMANN. Liber cronicarum cum figuris et ymaginibus ab inicio mundi.
Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 12 July 1493.
SCHNYDER, ANDRÉ, ed. Malleus Maleficarum: Von Heinrich Institoris (alias
Kramer) unter Mithilfe Jakob Sprengers aufgrund der dämonologischen Tradi-
tion zusammengestellt. Wiedergabe des Erstdrucks von 1487 (Hain 9238). Litte-
rae 113. Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1991.
SCHREINER, PETER. Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken. CFHB 12. Vienna: ÖAW,
1975–1979.
—. “Literarische Interessen in der Palaiologenzeit anhand von Gelehrtencodices:
Das Beispiel des Vaticanus gr. 914.” Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenze-
it. Ed. Werner Seibt. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik 8.
Vienna: ÖAW, 1996. 205–219.
SCHULTE, JOHANN FRIEDRICH VON. Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des
canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Enke,
1875–1880.
SCOTT, ROGER. “Narrating Justinian: From Malalas to Manasses.” In: BURKE 2006.
29–46.
329
Bibliography
SEARBY, DENIS M. “A Paraphrase of Gregory of Nazianz’ Carmen De Virtute 2.9 in

an Uppsala MS.” OCP 69 (2003): 341–353. [= SEARBY 2003a]
—. “A Collection of Mathematical Problems in Cod. Ups. Gr. 8.” BZ 96 (2003):
689–702. [= SEARBY 2003b]
—. The Corpus Parisinum: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text with Commentary
and English Translation (A Medieval Anthology of Greek Texts from the Pre-
Socratics to the Church Fathers, 600 B.C.–700 A.D.). Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen,
2007.
SETTON, KENNETH M. “The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance.”
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 100 (1956): 1–76.
ŠEVENKO, NANCY PATTERSON. “The Vita Icon and the Painter as Hagiographer.”
DOP 53 (1999): 149–165.
SHAILOR, BARBARA A. “A Cataloger’s View.” The Whole Book: Cultural perspec-
tives on the Medieval Miscellany. In: NICHOLS & WENZEL 1996. 153–167.
SIMON, ECKEHARD. “The Case for Medieval Philology.” Comparative Literature
Studies 27 (1990): 16–19.
SIRAISI, NANCY G. “Oratory and Rhetoric in Renaissance Medicine.” JHI 65.2
(2004): 191–211.
SJÖBERG, LARS-OLOF. Stephanites und Ichnelates: Überlieferungsgeschichte und
Text. Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 2. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,
1962.
SKEAT, THEODORE C. “The Length of the Standard Papyrus Roll and the Cost-
Advantage of the Codex.” ZPE 45 (1982): 169–175.
SMITH, WESLEY D., ed. Hippocrates. Pseudepigraphic Writings: Letters, Embassy,
Speech from the Altar, Decree. Studies in Ancient Medicine 2. Leiden: Brill,
1990.
SORABJI, RICHARD. Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. London:
Duckworth, 1987.
SOTTILI, AGOSTINO. “Ambrogio Traversari, Francesco Pizolpasso, Giovanni Au-
rispa: Traduzioni e letture.” Romanische Forschungen 78 (1966): 42–63.
SPACHIUS, ISRAEL, ed. Gynæciorum sive De mulierum tum communibus, tum gravi-
darum, parientium, et puerperarum affectibus et morbis, libri græcorum,
arabum, latinorum veterum et recentium quotquot extant... Strasbourg:
Zetznerus, 1597.
SPRAGUE, ROSAMOND KENT. The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation by Sev-
eral Hands of the Fragments in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Columbia: U
of South Carolina P, 1972.
STARK, SEBASTIAN G. Specimen sapientae Indorum veterum, id est, Liber ethico-
politicus pervetustus, dictus Arabice Kalilah wa-Dimna, Graece StephanitÆs kai
IchnÆlatÆs. Nunc primum Graece ex mss. cod. Holsteiniano prodit, cum versione
nova Latina. Berlin, 1697.
STAUBER, RICHARD. Die Schedelsche Bibliothek: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Ausbreitung der italienischen Renaissance, des deutschen Humanismus und der
medizinischen Literatur. Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Ge-
schichte 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche, 1908.
STEELE, JOHN M. Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astrono-
mers. Archimedes 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000.
STERNBACH, LEO. “Excerpta Parisina.” Rozprawy Akademii UmiejÈtnoÊci. WydziaË
Filologiczny ser. 2: 5 (1894): 53–82.
STEVENS, LINTON C. “How the French Humanists of the Renaissance Learned
Greek.” PMLA 65:2 (1950): 240–248.
STEWART, RANDALL, ed. Sortes Astrampsychi. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 2001.
330
Bibliography
STRACK, HERMANN L. & GÜNTER STEMBERGER. Introduction to the Talmud and

Midrash. Edinburgh: Clark, 1991.
SVENBERG, EMANUEL. De latinska lunaria: Text och studier. Doktorsavhandlingar i
latinsk filologi vid Göteborgs högskola 13. Göteborg: Eranos, 1936. [Diss.]
—. Lunaria et Zodiologia Latina. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 16.
Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1963.
SYKUTRIS, JOHANNES. “Proklos £ @
#$ _
¯.” BNJ 7 (1928/29):
108–118.
TAMBRUN-KRASKER, BRIGITTE. [
[ "
%
%+ X / Geor-
ges Gémiste Pléthon. Traité des vertus. Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi 3.
Athens: Academy of Athens, 1987.
TANNERY, PAUL. “Astrampsychos.” REG 11 (1898): 96–106.
—. “Le Rabolion: Traités de géomancie arabes, grecs et latins,” Mémoires scienti-
fiques. Vol. 4: Sciences exactes chez les Byzantins. Ed. J.-L. Heiberg. Toulouse:
Édouard Privat, 1920. 295–412.
TEMKIN, OWSEI. The Double Face of Janus and Other Essays in the History of
Medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977.
THIEL, HELMUT VAN. Die Rezension des Pseudo-Kallisthenes. Bonn: Habelt, 1959.
THOMAS, BROOK. The New Historicism and Other Old-Fashioned Topics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton UP, 1991.
THOMSON, JOHN A.F. “Papalism and Conciliarism in Antonio Roselli’s Monarchia.”
Mediaeval Studies [Toronto] 37 (1975): 445–458.
THORNDIKE, LYNN. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vol. 3–4: Four-
teenth and Fifteenth Centuries. New York: Columbia UP, 1934.
—. “The Problem of the Composite Manuscript.” Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati.
Vol. 6: Paleografia; Bibliografia; Varia. Studi e Testi 126. Vatican City, n.p.,
1946. 93–104.
THRAEDE, KLAUS. ”Erfinder II.” RAC 5 (1962): 1191–1278.
THÜR, GERHARD. “Gnome.” Der Neue Pauly. Vol. 4. Ed. Hubert Cancik & Helmuth
Schneider. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1998. 1108–1116.
TOMSON, PETER J. “Purity Laws Viewed by Church Fathers and Jesus.” Purity and
Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Ed. Marcel Poorthuis & Joshua Schwartz.
Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 73–91.
TORALLAS TOVAR, SOFÍA. ”De codicibus graecis Upsaliensibus olim Escurialen-
sibus.” Erytheia 15 (1994): 191–258.
TOUBERT, HÉLÈNE. “Le bréviaire d’Oderisius (Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS
364) et les influences byzantines au Mont-Cassin.” Mélanges de l’École fran-
çaise de Rome: Moyen âge, temps modernes 83 (1971): 187–261.
TSIRPANLIS, CONSTANTINE N. Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence: A His-
torical Re-Evaluation of His Personality.
$ #\
14.
Thessalonica: Center of Byzantine Studies, 1974.
TURNBULL, STEPHEN. The Walls of Constantinople AD 324–1453. Fortress 25. Ox-
ford: Osprey, 2004.
TURYN, ALEXANDER. Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Centuries in the Libraries of Italy. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1972.
—. “Michael Lulludes: A Scribe of the Palaiologan Era.” RSBN 10 (1973): 3–15.
TZIATZI-PAPAGIANNI, MARIA. Die Sprüche der sieben Weisen: zwei byzantinische
Sammlungen. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 51. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1994. [Diss
Hamburg]
UGHELLI, FERDINANDO. Italia Sacra sive de episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacen-
tium... Vol. 1. Rome: Bernardino Tano, 1644.
331
Bibliography
VALENTINER, WILHELM R. “The Equestrian Statue of Paulo Savelli in the Frari.”

The Art Quarterly 16 (1953): 280–293.
VALERI, NINO. L’Italia nell età dei principati dal 1343 al 1516. Storia d’Italia 5.
Verona: Mondadori, 1949.
VAN BINSBERGEN, WIM. “The astrological origin of Islamic geomancy.” Paper read
at The Society for the Study of Islamic Philosophy and Science / Society of An-
cient Greek Philosophy 1996, 15th Annual Conference, Binghamton University.
Dept. of Philosophy / CEMERS. 31 Aug. 2008
<http://www.shikanda.net/ancient_models/BINGHAMTON%201996.pdf >. [=
VAN BINSBERGEN 1996a]
—. “Regional and Historical Connections of Four-Tablet Divination in Southern
Africa.” Journal of Religion in Africa 26 (1996): 2–29. [= VAN BINSBERGEN
1996b]
VAN DER HORST, PIETER W. “Sortes: Sacred Books as Instant Oracles.” The Use of
Sacred Books in the Ancient World. Ed. L.V. Rutgers et al. Contributions to
Biblical Exegesis and Theology 22. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. 143–173.
VÉRIN, PIERRE & NARIVELO RAJAONARIMANANA. “Divination in Madagascar: The
Antemoro Case and the Diffusion of Divination.” African Divination Systems:
Ways of Knowing. Ed. Philip M. Peek. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 53–68.
VERPEAUX, JEAN. “Hiérarchie et préséances sous les Paléologues.” TM 1 (1965):
421–437.
—, ed. Pseudo-Kodinos. Traité des offices. Le monde byzantin 1. Paris: CNRS,
1976.
VERRUA, PIETRO. Umanisti ed altri “studiosi viri” italiani e stranieri di qua e di là
dalle Alpi e dal Mare. Biblioteca dell’ “Archivum Romanicum,” Serie I: Storia-
Letteratura-Paleografia, 3. Geneva: Olschki, 1924.
VISCUSO, PATRICK. “Theodore Balsamon’s Canonical Images of Women.” GRBS 45
(2005): 317–326.
VOGEL, MARIE & VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN. Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelal-
ters und der Renaissance. Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, Beiheft 33. Leip-
zig: Harrassowitz, 1909.
VÖÖBUS, ARTHUR, ed. The Disdascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, II: Chapters XI–
XXVI. CSCO 407 and 408. Louvain: CSCO, 1979.
WALDSTEIN, MICHAEL & FREDERIK WISSE, eds. The Apocryphon of John: A Synop-
sis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. Nag Ham-
madi and Manichaean studies 33. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
WEEL, ADRIAAN VAN DER. “From Bibliography to Book Studies.” The European
English Messenger XI/2 (Autumn 2002): 34–37.
WEICHERT, VALENTIN, ed. Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur !
" "
"
+ et
("
" {
" )*. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1910.
WEITZ, THOMAS A. Der Traktat des Antonio Roselli De conciliis ac synodis genera-
libus: historisch-kanonistische Darstellung und Bewertung. Konziliengeschich-
te. Reihe B, Untersuchungen. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2002.
WELLISCH, HANS H. The first Arab bibliography: Fihrist al-'Ulum. Occasional pa-
pers / University of Illinois Graduate school of library and information science
175. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1986.
WEST, MARTIN L., ed. Hesiod. Works & days. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
WEST, STEPHANIE. “Croesus’ Second Reprieve and Other Tales of the Persian
Court.” CQ 53 (2003): 416–437.
WHITE, HAYDEN V. The Content of Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Rep-
resentation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987.
332
Bibliography
WIDSTRAND, ERIK. Lunariastudien. Göteborgs högskolas årsskrift 48:4. Göteborg:

Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1942.
WILSON, ADRIAN & JOYCE LANCASTER WILSON. The Making of the Nuremberg
Chronicle. Amsterdam: Israel, 1976.
WILSON, NIGEL G. “The Date and Origin of MS. Barocci 131.” BZ 59 (1966): 305–
306.
—. “A Byzantine Miscellany: MS. Barocci 131 described.” JÖB 27 (1978): 157–
179.
—. Scholars of Byzantium. London: Duckworth, 1983.
WITTEK, MARTIN. “Manuscrits et codicologie: Pour une étude du scriptorium de
Michel Apostolès et consorts.” Scriptorium 7 (1953): 290–297.
WOOD, CHARLES T. “The Doctor’s Dilemma: Sin, Salvation, and the Menstrual
Cycle in Medieval Thought.” Speculum 56 (1981): 710–727.
WOODHOUSE, CHRISTOPHER M. George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
ZAKYTHINOS, DIONYSIOS A. Le despotat grec de Morée. Vol. I: Histoire politique.
Vol. II: Vie et institutions. Ed. Chryssa Maltézou. London: Variorum, 1975.
ZANETTO, GIUSEPPE. “La tradizione manoscritta delle ‘Epistole’ di Teofilatto Simo-
catta.” BollClass 24 (1976): 64–86.
—. ”Alcuni aspetti dello stile delle epistole di Teofilatto.” JÖB 32/3 (1982): 165–
174. [= ZANETTO 1982a]
—. “Inventario dei manoscritti delle Epistole di Teofilatto Simocatta.” Acme: annali
della Facoltà di filosofia e lettere dell’Università statale di Milano 35/1 (1982):
153–166. [= ZANETTO 1982b]
—, ed. Theophylacti Simocatae epistulae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1985.
ZEDLER, JOHANN HEINRICH, ed. Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wis-
senschaften und Künste. Leipzig und Halle: Zedler, 1733–1754.
ZERVOS, SKEVOS. “|
Ó |^ #×< Ò
Ò
.” Athena 21 (1909): 7–
138.
ZIAS, JOSEPH. “Lust and Leprosy: Confusion or Correlation?” BASO 275 (1989):
27–31.
ZIMARA, ANTONIUS. Problemata Aristotelis: Mancherley zweyfelhafftiger Fragen
gründtliche erörterung und aufflösung deß hoch berühmpten Aristotelis und vil
anderer bewerten Natur erkündiger. Frankfurt am Main, 1571.
ZONTA, CASPAR & IOHANNES BROTTO. Acta graduum academicorum Gymnasii
Patavini ab anno 1406 ad annum 1450 cum aliis antiquioribus in appendice ad-
ditis iudicio historico collecta ac digesta. Istituto per la storia dell’ università di
Padova 18. Padua: Typis Seminarii, 1922.
333
Index
Index
Aesop 69, 108, 122, 252 astronomy 98, 134, 176, 213, 215f.,
Fables 111, 125, 168 229, 255
Life of 108, 124f. Athens 68, 94, 126, 128, 132, 135,
Ailios Aristeides 133, 146 139
Aëtios of Amida 82, 175 Aurispa, Giovanni 244, 247, 251f.,
akolouthia 166 256, 259
Alexander Romance 80f., 124, 168f., Ausonius, De institutione viri boni
171 103, 105, 135
Alexandria 28, 39, 157, 161f., 171 Avicenna 200, 208
Alexios I Komnenos, Emperor 122
Alfonso V of Aragon 249–251, 254, Baghdad, ‘Abb sid court of 234
258, 260 Balsamon, Theodore 202, 206, 209
Alyates, Nikephoros 34 Barlaam, Historia Aethiopica 23
Amadeo VIII, Duke of Savoy (Pope Basil the Great 66, 125, 140–142,
Felix V) 250f. 206, 248, 262
Anacharsis 139f. Epistles 68, 98, 110f., 124, 141–
Epistles 66, 80, 126, 139, 150f., 143, 150f.
169 Bembo, Pietro 104
Anna Komnena 35 Bessarion of Trebizond, Cardinal
apophthegmata: see sayings 128, 154, 160, 162, 235f., 246–
Apostoles, Michael 23, 53, 67, 133, 248, 258–260, 262
148–150, 185, 236, 248, 260f. Epistles 67, 87, 124, 147–151
Aquinas, Thomas 199, 208f. bibliography, analytical 26
Argyropoulos, John 131, 161 binding
Aristotle (cf. John Philoponos; Ple- of Escorial MSS 54
thon, George Gemistos) of Gr 8 54f.
philosophy 35, 147–149, 153, 156, Spanish vellum 54
159f., 169, 207f., 247f., 260 binding accident (see also miscel-
On Dreams 193 lany, recueil factice) 47
The Generation of Animals 192– Blemmydes, Nikephoros 209
195, 200, 202, 204 book history 25–29, 51
Politics 129 Histoire du livre 26
Problems 193 book roll 38–40
Rhetoric 58 booklet 43f., 59, 109f.
On the Soul 155, 157 botany 82, 173–175, 177, 227, 365–
astrology (see also geomancy) 176, 270
193, 207, 212–215, 225–228, 232, boundary criteria 43, 59f.
235–237 in Gr 8: see Chapter 3, passim
Bruni, Leonardo 67, 128, 247, 249
334
Index
The Constitution of Florence 85, of Basel 247, 250, 256

128f., 177 of Ferrara-Florence 90, 128, 147–
Carmen Paraeneticum (cf. Spaneas) 149, 159–162, 246f., 251, 259
92, 94, 96, 136f., 171 of Nicaea 205
catchword 59 Covarrubias y Leiva, Diego de 56
catena 34 Crete 23f., 56, 63, 102
Chalkeopylos, Athanasios 247f., Candia (Iraklio) 53, 56, 58
258–260 Kydonia (Chania) 53, 58
Chalkokandyles, Demetrios 238, 256
Choniates, Michael, Elegy on Athens Damilas, Antonios 53, 70, 149
68f., 94, 128, 135 Dandolo, Matteo 23f.
Chortasmenos, John 47, 162 Darmarios, Andreas 56, 240
Christonymos, Manuel, Monody on Decalogue, The 68, 93, 111f., 166
the Capture of Constantinople 67, decoration 43, 55, 61, 86 and Chapter
85, 128, 133, 261 3 passim
chronicle, short 97, 120, 129, 172, Del Balzo Orsini, Giovannantonio
290, 296 250, 257f.
Clement of Alexandria 202–204 Demetrios of Phaleron 141, 238
codex Devotio moderna 32
monomerous 43–47 devotional texts 32, 165f., 174
miscellaneous (cf. miscellany) 32– Diocles of Karystos 82, 139, 143,
36, 40–47 and passim 150, 174
multitext 22, 31–48 divination, see also geomancy 176,
singel-quire 40 184, 212–237
codicology 26–29
archaeology of the book 27 Eirene, Empress (Bertha von Sulz-
Handschriftenkunde 27 bach) 127
codicological unit 31, 43–48 Ekthesis Nea 239f., 261
criteria for 59–61 El Escorial 23f., 52–65, 109, 161f.,
definition of 44, 59 261
enlarged, enriched, extended 44f., embryology 188, 192f.
77 émigrés, Greek 36, 104, 246f., 253,
file 45 257, 260
production unit 45, 60 energeia 155
usage unit 45 enkyklios paideia 35, 176
composite 33–35, 38–48 and passim entelecheia 155, 293
instability of 43 epigram, see also poetry 39, 136
Constantine of Sicily 100, 136 AP IX 359–360 97f., 135
Constantinople 24, 34f., 96, 104, memento mori 171
110–112, 127, 133, 142, 146f., as page filler 93, 137
161f., 171, 206, 214, 233f., 239f., epistolography 137–151
247, 256f. treatise of letter-writing 140f.,
fall of 130, 133, 172 (see also 184, 238–241
Christonymos, Manuel) erotapokriseis 34, 57, 163, 275
sieges of 128, 216, 236 Este 244, 251f., 256
corpus 40f., 44f. Eugenikos, John 133, 160, 166
co-scribe: see scribes Eugenikos, Mark 67, 87, 128, 185
cosmology 152–154, 212f., 235 Analogies 90, 275
Council 254 On the filioque doctrine 89, 162
335
Index
Thoughts 162f., 274 Gorgias 145

Eugenius IV, Pope 246, 249, 251, Gregoras, Nikephoros 133
254 Historia Rhomaïke 134
Eugenios of Palermo 123 Letter to the Grand Logothete 69,
Euripides 39, 170, 213, 256 98, 111, 133f., 141, 147, 150f.
Eustathios of Thessalonike 146 Gregory of Nazianzos 138, 141, 151,
exaposteilarion 66, 136, 166 206, 261
Carm. mor. I. 2, 9: 95, 134, 164
fable 77, 81, 108f., 111, 120–127, Epistles 66, 80f., 98, 125f., 140,
131, 134, 151, 168 150f.
Ferrara, see also Council 251f., 256, Gregory of Nyssa 142, 206
259 Gregory Thaumatourgos, Treatise on
fiction 119–127, 177 the Soul 67, 85, 151, 156f.
fictitious biography 124, 139 Guzman de Silva, Diego 23
fictitious letters 126, 139f., 144–
146, 174 Hausbuch 47
file: see codicological unit hemerology (cf. geomancy) 223,
Filelfo, Francesco 149 229–231
filioque, doctrine of 67, 89, 161, 177, Heptanesa (Ionian Islands) 102
235 Herodotos 127, 139f., 146
Florence, see also Council and Bruni, Hesiod, Works and Days 189, 230
Leonardo 96, 128, 257 hesychasm 133, 162
florilegium (cf. gnomology) 46, 68f., Hippocrates 188, 192, 195, 200, 255
94, 136f., 168–170, 277, 282–290 Epistles 66, 80, 126, 139, 150
Fondi 252, 259, 262 On the Number Seven 175
formulary 238–262 histoire de mentalités 168
historiography (see also chronicle,
Gazes, Theodore 148f., 238, 249, 252 short; Manasses, Constantine) 67,
Gebrauchsliteratur 138, 168 91, 120, 126–130, 133, 170
Gelehrtencodex (scholar’s miscel- Hrabanus Maurus 207
lany) 35 Hurtado de Mendoza, Diego 56
Gennadios II: see George Scholarios Hymn to the Theotokos 68, 87, 135,
geomancy 97, 176, 212–237 165
Feng Shui 228, 232
geomantic chart 212, 224f., 218f., Ibn al-cAr bã 216
227, 232 Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ 122
geomantic houses 97, 220–227 Ibn Khaldûn 212
Pa Kua 235 inedita in Gr 8: 18, 25, 186f., 218–
George Gemistos: see Plethon 223, 242–245, 265–296
George Scholarios 67, 124, 128, 147, Isidore of Kiev 35
152, 154, 156, 160f., 163, 185, Isidore of Pelousion 87, 143f., 150f.,
230, 235 205f., 209f., 261
Genoa 54 Isidore of Seville 207
Glykas, Michael 57, 209f. Isocrates 131
gnomology, see also florilegium 137, Oration 1 (To Demonicus) 66,
164, 168, 170 80f., 111, 131, 137, 151, 167
derived from Constantine Manas- John Chrysostom
ses’ Synopsis Chronike 87, 135, Due to the lack of self control 183,
170f., 277–280 184–211
336
Index
Speech against Herodias 67, 87, literacy 102

132 literary communities 53
John of Damascus 87, 164, 185, 265 liturgical texts 44, 103, 166
John Lachanas 146 Lotario dei Segni (Innocent III) 207
John Philoponos, Commentary in Loukaris, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexan-
Aristotle’s De Anima 155–159 dria and Constantinople 161
Joseph II, Patriarch 128, 162 Ludovico I, Duke of Savoy 250f.,
Josephus 190f. 258
The Jewish War 69, 98, 111, Lushnja, Albania 253
127f., 132, 141 Lusignan, house of 251, 253
Kalla wa-Dimna: see Stephanites magic (see also geomancy) 193f.,

and Ichnelates 199, 213f.
Kallistos, Andronikos 67, 133, 148f., Manasses, Constantine, Synopsis
185 Chronike 87, 135, 170, 184
Kamariotes, Matthew 133, 154 gnomology derived from 277–280
Kananos, John 236f. Manuel II Palaiologos, Emperor 147,
Kantakouzenos, John 133 256, 261
Karl XI of Sweden 22 manuscripts
Korydalleus, Theophilos 140, 239 Bonon. gr. 3632: 215f.
Kyzikos 56f., 104 Bruxell. 11270: 133, 260
Harl. 5596: 235
Lactantius 203f. Monac. gr. 490: 139
layout: see mise-en-page Oxf. Barocc. 131: 34–36, 136, 175
Leo VI (Leo the Wise), Emperor 69, Par. gr. 2077: 133
100, 136, 163 Par. gr. 2097: 53
Leonello d’Este, Marquis of Ferrara Par. gr. 2424: 216f., 220, 229
244, 251f., 259f. Par. gr. 2491: 216, 219
leprosy 187–211 Par. gr. 2938: 53, 70
leprosaria 206 Par. gr. 2991A: 24, 110–112, 145
letter headings: see formulary Par. gr. 3045: 53, 56f., 59, 70, 78,
lexica 83, 108, 209
botanical 82, 173, 267–272 Scorial. . II. 14: 233
dialectal 97, 173, 296f. Scorial. ª.IV.1: 240f., 260–262
of synonyms 68, 94, 173 Sinait. gr. 1677: 57f.
Libanios 133, 262 Vat. gr. 867: 239
Declamation 6 80 Vat. gr. 914: 35
Declamation 26 67, 87, 131f., 185 Vat. gr. 1353: 139
Epistles 98, 111, 131, 140–143, Vindob. Suppl. gr. 75: 47
150f., 238 Margounios, Maximos 58
lists 39, 120, 172 mathematics 39, 57, 69, 106–108,
inventors 97 152, 175, 217
Palaiologan emperors and sultans Matheolo of Perugia 244, 255f., 259
97, 112, 172 Maurice, Emperor 144
patriarchs and kings 93, 111, 172 Mehmet II 128, 172
patriarchates and bishoprics 97, medicine (see also Aëtios; menstrua-
124 tion; menstrual intercourse; Paul
Seven Wonders 85, 96, 120, 172 of Aegina) 82, 123, 139, 152,
Seven Sages 111, 140, 156, 170
337
Index
174f., 191–200, 215, 230f., 244, multitext books 22, 26, 31–37, 38–48
255 and passim
contraceptive and abortive 82, 175
formula 82, 175 Naples 148, 248–260
humoral pathology 188, 191f. narrative texts (see also fable; saying;
medico-botanical lexicon: see Stephanites and Ichnelates) 111,
botany 118–130, 177
Meleagros 39 historical narrative 120, 126–130,
menstruation 133–135, 237
and blindness 186–188, 198–203, minor narratives 120, 124, 126,
208f. 129, 134, 167–171
and cancer 186f., 195, 198, 208 narrativity 81, 120
and leprosy 184–211 narreme 120
menstrual intercourse 184–211 Nauplion 58
menstrual taboo 189 Negroponte 149
and monstrosities 192–194, 201, New Historicism 30
207 Nicaea 34f., 205, 239, 246
Metaxas, Nikodemos 161, 239 Niccolò of Otranto 234
Metochites, Theodore 69, 133f., 141 Nicholas V, Pope 246
Methone 58 Nicholas of Cusa 247, 260
Metrodoros, AP IX 360: 97f., 135 Notaras, Dositheos, Patriarch of Jeru-
micro-texts 80f., 96f., 105–108, 117, salem 161
129, 154, 171, 177f. novel 32, 38, 120, 124, 126f., 135,
miscellaneity 44–47 170
miscellany epistolary novel 81, 126, 139f.
author’s 45
disorganic 46f. offices
homogenetic 44 ecclesiastical 242–248
miscellaneous codex 32–37, 40– secular 243–259
48 and passim Onorato II, Count of Fondi 244, 252,
organized/organic 46, 61 259
recueil factice (see also binding oratory 131–134, 255
accident) 46, 110 Origen 157, 190
recueil organisé 46 owner of book 23f., 36, 47, 51, 58,
mise-en-page 43, 60 and passim 70, 78, 161
calculation of 99f. owner’s notice 87, 91, 100–102,
mise-en-recueil 35, 110 106, 215
monastery, see also El Escorial
of Cetatuia 161 Padua 56, 193, 244, 254f., 257, 259
St. Anastasia Pharmakolytria, page filler 67–69, 80f., 85, 93, 96, 98,
Chalkidiki 111 110, 137, 166f., 171, 175
St. Catherine, Candia 58 palaeography 35f., 39, 42, 53f., 247,
St. Catherine, Sinai 57f., 248 251
Grottaferrata 122, 248 Palaiologan period 31, 35 ,120, 171f.,
St. Maria del Patire 242, 247, 262 214f., 237f., 253
Montecassino 243, 248, 252, 258 papyri (cf. writing material) 139, 200
monograph 17, 28f., 41, 47 P. BM Kahun XVII,3: 230
Morea 249, 253 P. Sallier IV (BM 10184): 230
338
Index
P. Cairo inv. 65445; Pack2 2642: predestination 153f., 162–164, 212f.

39 prince’s mirror 81, 122, 140, 177
Paul of Aegina, Medical compendium printing 25–27, 31, 161, 238
64, 82, 173 progymnasmata 120, 131, 134
pen trials 55, 71, 79, 87, 100, 102f., Proklos 140, 229, 238
106f. provenance of Gr 8 22–25, 51–59,
Pergamon 39 110–112
Perugia 244, 255f., 259 Psellos, Michael 34f.
Philes, Manuel, Carmina 101f. psychogram 36, 263
Philip II of Spain 23f., 56 Pythagorean 153f.
philology 27, 36, 40, 112 categories 156, 293f.
New Philology 28f. (Neo-)pythagorean influence 160,
Philomela, story of 125f. 233
philosophy (cf. Aristotle; Avicenna;
Gregory Thaumatourgos; John question-and-answer literature: see
Philoponos; Plato; Plethon; Psel- erotapokriseis
los; Theodoret of Kyrros) 34, 85, quire
96f., 119, 123, 142, 151–165, 171, boundary 43, 60, 104 and Chapter
177, 185, 200, 207f., 212, 217, 3 passim
221, 251, 247, 255 construction 44, 60f., 71–73, 76f.,
physiognomy 231f. 93f.
pinax 55f. 62–69 signatures 43, 55, 60
Pius II, Pope (Enea Silvio Picco-
lomini) 150 ramplion: see geomancy
Pizolpasso, Francesco 246f., 258–260 rapiaria 32
Plato 35, 38, 40, 127, 147f., 152–154, Raul, Emmanuel 261
156f., 159–161, 217, 247 readers 24f., 29, 33, 41, 45, 47, 117f.,
Plethon, George Gemistos 67, 87, 90, 120, 133, 135, 167f., 178, 194,
128f., 131, 147–152, 154, 156, 236, 260
160f., readers’ notes 68, 82, 89, 91, 98,
On the differences 160 102f., 105–108, 171f., 175, 178,
On virtues 67, 147, 160, 164 296
Reply to George Scholarios’ De- rhetoric (cf. oratory) 34, 38, 58, 67f.,
fense of Aristotle 67, 124, 149, 118–121, 130–151, 172, 176f.,
156, 160 203, 251, 255
Reply to the Treatise in Support of Rome 248–259
the Latin Doctrine 67, 89f., 161f. Roselli, Antonio 254f., 259
Pliny 191–195, 201f., 206f., 210
Plutarch 39, 135, 146, 153, 210, 217 Sagundino, Nicholas 24, 56, 148–150
poetry (see also epigram) 39, 127f., Letter to Andronikos Kallistos 67,
133–137, 144, 153, 165, 255 87, 124, 149f., 185
anacreontic 100, 136 Salm n, librarian of Caliph al-
political verse 127, 135f., 146, Ma’mn
165, 167 Sammelband 45
Posidippus of Pella, AP IX 359: 97f., Sammelhandschrift 34, 45
135 Savelli, Paolo 245, 256f., 259
prayer 68, 104, 141, 158, 165f., 238 sayings (see also gnomology, flori-
prayer formula, scribal 61,85, 93, legium) 80f., 87, 94–96, 107,
106, 161 136f., 167–171, 177, 277
339
Index
Schedel, Hartmann 255f. Theodoros of Ky…kos, main scribe

scribe (see also Torre, Nicholas de la of Gr 8 (passim)
and Theodoros Ky…kos) colophon of 24, 56f.
co-scribe A 58, 80, 82–84 Titus, Emperor 66, 128
co-scribe B 59, 103–105 Torre, Nicholas de la 52, 55f., 62–69,
scribal working method 35f., 43, 72, 89, 136, 161f.
99f., 171, 177f. Tusculum 242, 246, 260
scriptorium 51, 53, 248 Tzetzes, John 39, 67, 91f., 127, 135,
Scutellius, Nicolaus 148 146, 150f., 168
selenodromion (cf. hemerology)
222f., 229–231 Uppsala: see provenance of Gr 8
Serojas, Juan de 23
Seven Sages, The 140 Valla, Lorenzo 247, 249
sayings of 111, 156, 170 Venice 23f., 56, 256f.
Seven Wonders, The 85, 96, 120, 172 virtue (see also Plethon, On Virtues)
Sicily 124, 243, 247–249, 252f., 256 87f., 134, 146, 158, 163f., 169,
Simokates, Theophylact 144f. 171
Epistles 68, 93, 111f., 126f., 145, Viterbo 148–150
150, 154
Sortes Astrampsychi 231 watermark 43, 51–53, 58, 60, 172f.,
soul (see also Aristotle; entelecheia; 260
Gregory Thaumatourgos; Plato) anchor 89, 91–93, 112
53, 152, 154–163, 171 balance 53, 70, 78
faculties of 80, 154, 169 escutcheon 54
immortality of 154, 157–160 hat 106
views on the 85, 95, 154, 290–293 oxhead 53, 70, 78, 91–95, 97, 100,
Souliardos, Michael 53, 58, 149 103, 110, 121
Spain 23, 54–56, 213 scissors 80, 82, 85, 87, 92
Salamanca 56 twin marks 52f., 70
Segovia 56, 62 writing material
Spaneas 136f. parchment 23, 40, 43
Pseudo-Spaneas, see also Carmen paper 52–54 and Chapter 3 passim
Paraeneticum 137 papyrus 38–40
Sparwenfeld, Johan Gabriel 22–24,
52, 55, 63 zibaldone 47
spiritual life, stages of 158f., 270– Zonaras, John 57, 173
273 zodiac (see also geomancy) 97, 218f.,
Stephanites and Ichnelates 66, 68– 226
78, 81, 121–123, 125 zodiacal houses 222f., 226
recensions/versions 75, 123 zoroastrianism 160, 189f., 199, 233
stradioti 253f. Zygomalas, Theodosios 123
Symeon Seth 35, 77, 75, 122f., 214
Syropoulos, Sylvester 161
textual variance 28f., 74

Theodoret of Kyrros, Cure of the
Pagan Maladies 68, 97, 152–155,
162, 203, 212f.
340

FULLTEXT02geomancie Byzantine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FULLTEXT02geomancie Byzantine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS

Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia

© Eva Nyström 2009

Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås 2009.

Distributor: Uppsala University Library, P.O. Box 510, SE-751 20 Uppsala

The journey toward the completion of a doctoral dissertation is joyful and

AASS Acta sanctorum. Brussels; Antwerp; Paris, 1643– .

In the field of Greek and Byzantine studies working with manuscripts is no

prehensive approach to manuscript books, whether they be monographs or

1462.2 Another late example is a Monody on the Fall of Constantinople writ-

Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8, a first acquaintance

Philology, old and new

renewal or not.21 Contrary to codicology, philology has a history which goes

Contextualizing medieval books

Previous research on multitext books

A few conference volumes

manuscripts extant, waiting to be analyzed. According to van Anrooij, two

Studies of Byzantine multitext books

specifically to miscellaneous manuscripts. The three others are more recent

tainer/codex; the other is the container’s physical or material structure.42

sions and the humanist movement in Italy. The codicological structure as

2 Composite Books and Miscellanies

Terminology current at the time

The container and its contents

The reason why it is so important to establish the structure or stratigraphy

The relation between contents and structure

unfortunate, because it maintains the confusion of the structural and conten-

As for anthologies of excerpts or citations: when the form is unitary and

tema e/o genere” (RONCONI 2004, 146).

order to reach a comprehensive view of what “coherence expectancy” people

In this chapter I present a thorough codicological analysis of Codex Upsa-

General aspects of the codex

Provenance and further vicissitudes

entation of Gr 8 has already been given in Chapter 1, I will be brief on the

cal/palaeographical research, and further treasures from fifteenth-century

Book block and binding

Criteria for discerning codicological units

specifications. I believe that by formalizing the procedure, we will have a

D – G apply to the end of a unit.

H – O apply to the ensuing unit in relation to the preceding one.

A quire boundary and text boundary coincide

M different style of decoration

From the definition of a codicological unit, it follows that A is a necessary

Codicological unit 1 (U1) – the pinax

Nicholas de la Torre’s contribution to Gr 8

F. Ir (90 % of original size). Scribe: Nicholas de la Torre.

The selection of entries for the pinax

tory” of Byzantine literature/books.35 For an overview, I have put the new

(f. Ir)  

¤ $ (Text 29).

Nicholas refers us to the two excerpts from Josephus, and to Nikephoros

The discarded pinax on f. IIv

Codicological unit 2 (U2), ff. 1–87

Quires: Q2: [1–6] ternion. Q3: [7–12, 12a–12b] 1 ternion + 2 leaves

Anomalies in the quire construction

Sketch of Q2 and Q3 (ff. 1–6 and 7–12b):

F. 12bv (“6b” verso), expl.:       !  ". #!$ %

The lacuna before f. 13

F. 12v, expl.:   0  (sic) 4+5 / "   8    '   0

F. 13r , inc.: [... < %

If we compare the text in Gr 8 with Puntoni’s edition the lacuna amounts to

to compare the text transmitted in other manuscripts, to see whether they

Some reflections around the boundary at f. 76

(f. Ir)

¤ $ (Text 29).

F. 12bv (“6b” verso), expl.: ! ". #!$ %

F. 12v, expl.: 0 (sic) 4+5 / " 8 ' 0

F. 13r , inc.: [... < %

+ } }$# ~ _$ # "# ¨

+ } }# % _ # "# ¨